April 25, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



G47 



result is the replacement of long-used 

 names by others whose tenure is guaran- 

 teed only by personal opinions and indi- 

 vidual methods of literary and historical 

 criticism. 



It is true that several independent de- 

 scriptions of the same animal or plant 

 often fui-nish more complete and satisfac- 

 tory knowledge than could have been ex- 

 pected from any one naturalist, but not 

 even this consideration will reconcile us to 

 the indefinite multiplication of names by 

 those more anxious to announce discoveries 

 than to contribute to the permanent prog- 

 ress of scientific knowledge. As in general 

 literature, it may sometimes be permissible 

 to coin new scientific terms to avoid the 

 confusion likely to arise from the use of 

 those of doubtful application, but the tend- 

 ency for the last half century has been 

 distinctly in the direction of a divorce of 

 systematic from general literature by hold- 

 ing to the permanent use of old names in 

 preference to the admission of new and 

 improved designations, the substitution of 

 which had previously been a very common 

 practice. 



INSTABILITY UNDER LITERARY METHODS. 



In dealing with specific names both zool- 

 ogists and botanists now recognize that 

 nomenelatorial stability requires adher- 

 ence to a definite law of priority, with a 

 fixed initial date and other regulations 

 necessary for securing imiform interpreta- 

 tion and eliminating the variable factor of 

 individual opinion. The wisdom and util- 

 ity of these laws are now generally con- 

 sidered obvious, although there were many 

 objections at first, and even the great 

 Bentham took the ground that as the 

 names of plants consist of two parts, a law 

 of priority could be applied only to ' cor- 

 rect combinations.' By a similar effort of 

 casuistry an effective priority for genera 

 is now held to be impossible by systematists 



who still work under the theory that we 

 are not attempting to name the natural 

 groups of plants and animals, but are 

 merely attaching names to varying con- 

 cepts and definitions, the applications of 

 which are to be determined by a historical 

 study of the various interpretations and 

 arguments of previous students. Some- 

 counsel a strict adherence to the intentiom 

 of the original author, while others are ac- 

 customed to accept the usage of subsequent 

 writers, so that it not infrequently hap- 

 pens that a name is used for a group of 

 species quite distinct from those at first 

 placed imder it. An instance of this kind 

 is that of the royal palm,* where the fail- 

 ure to hold the names Euterpe and Oreo- 

 doxa to their original species has compli- 

 cated the synonymy and distribution of at 

 least six genera. 



Such usage accords well with the liter- 

 ary vicissitudes of words and definitions, 

 but it is obviously not likely to conduce to 

 the precision and stability required in 

 scientific terms. The method of elimina- 

 tion, under which interpretations of gen- 

 era are limited by the original content of 



* Already noted in Sciencb, N. S., 12:479, and 

 in The Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 

 28:549. 



The name Oreodoxa was originated by Willde- 

 now for two Venezuelan species, the first of which, 

 0. acuminata, has been referred to the older genus 

 Euterpe while the second, 0. praemorsa, has been 

 used by Wendland as the basis of his genua Cato- 

 blastits, the name Oreodoxa being transferred to 

 still a third group, no species of which was known 

 to the author of Oreodoxa. The extent of the care- 

 lessness induced by the method of concepts is fur- 

 ther illustrated by the fact that the genus 

 Euterpe, to which Oreodoxa acuminata, and numer- 

 ous other American species have been referred by 

 many eminent botanists, was not established for an 

 American palm, but for an East Indian species de- 

 scribed by Paimphius as a Pinanga in 1741, and 

 renamed Calyptroealyx by Blume in 1836. Gaert- 

 ner's original use of the name Euterpe in 1788 

 was however also connected with seeds of still 

 another old-world palm not yet identified. 



