August 22, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



311 



know as yet all the factors involved in the 

 problem, but considering the relative scanti- 

 ness of the food supply on the island at the 

 present it is safe to say that the experience 

 thus far gained speaks in favor of continuing 

 the policy of sparing the female fox. 



Leonhard Stejneger. 

 U. S. National Museum, 

 August 11, 1902. 



TYPES VERSUS RESIDUES. 



To THE Editor of Science: My recent note 

 under the heading 'Zoological Nomenclature 

 in Botany' was not intended as a contribu- 

 tion to a running controversy, but was merely 

 a plea of 'not guilty' to the horrible charge 

 of having continued in botany the discussion 

 .of a tiresome question solved long ago in 

 zoology. Historical differences in the develop- 

 ment of the two biological sciences were taken 

 to be at least a partial explanation of the fact 

 that zoologists had managed, though not with- 

 out considerable effort of casuistry, to keep 

 their barge afloat in spite of shoals which 

 would bring the more heavily laden botanical 

 craft firmly aground. That the framers of the 

 zoological chart to which botanists had been 

 referred had not sounded all the difficulties of 

 the problem of nomenclatorial stability is ren- 

 dered even more obvious by Dr. Dall's two 

 letters.* 



It is not to be expected that the merits of 

 any suggestion in so old and intricate a sub- 

 ject as nomenclature can be made plain by 

 desultory argument, but the possibility that 

 somebody may wish to examine the matter 

 further may justify the notice of such of the 

 new specifications of the second letter as seem 

 calculated to obscure the question of perma- 

 nent generic types. I am quite unable to un- 

 derstand why Dr. Dall should represent me as 

 objecting to 1758 as the initial date for zoo- 

 logical nomenclature, or as favoring vernacu- 

 lar names. 



Under the method of types systematists who 

 agree to the validity of a generic group will 

 not differ as to the name to be applied to it, 

 while under the method of elimination such 



* 'Science, N. S., XV., 749, May 9, 1902; XVI., 

 150, July 25, 1902. 



differences are frequent and necessary. This 

 absurd provision for perpetual confusion has 

 appeared unavoidable to DeCandolle and to 

 many eminent systematists of later date be- 

 cause they persist in the pre-evolutionary fal- 

 lacy of regarding genera as definitions or con- 

 cepts instead of taking advantage of the evo- 

 lutionary right to treat them as groups of 

 species, to one of which the generic name may 

 be as directly and fixedly attached as the spe- 

 cific name itself. And since by means of an 

 evolutionary axiom we can escape the Doubt- 

 ing Castle of mediseval casuistry and much 

 unproductive labor of antiquarian research. 

 Dr. Dall's objection to so simple and practical 

 an expedient can scarcely be understood ex- 

 cept as an unwillingness to come out — a no- 

 menclatorial Prisoner of Chillon, as it were. 



To attach generic names to type species cer- 

 tainly renders nomenclature far more effect- 

 ively separate from classification than when 

 they are made to pertain only to residues 

 which vary with every individual opinion. 

 Taxonomy as a whole is, however, but a means 

 for scientific ends, and is not studied merely 

 to preserve the Linnsan or the DeCandoUean 

 traditions. The taxonomic problems of to-day 

 are very different from anything contemplated 

 by Linnaeus, and if the system of nomen- 

 clature popularized by him could not be modi- 

 fied to serve practical purposes it would un- 

 doubtedly be discarded, as occasionally threat- 

 ened already by physiologists and ecologists 

 impatient at once of the complexity of or- 

 ganic nature and the fickleness of systematists. 



To have types for 'modern genera' will 

 yield no 'definite stability' while the ancient 

 names are free to roam over the face of na- 

 ture, though to tether each of them securely 

 in a particular place must disappoint all ex- 

 cept one of the claimants for possession. 

 Nevertheless it would seem that those who 

 have made hundreds of changes of names in 

 accordance with rules which do not produce 

 stability are scarcely in a position to object 

 to measures better calculated to secure perma- 

 nence. 



The only 'upsetting' advocated in this con- 

 nection is that of a rule which causes, per- 

 petuates and legalizes confusion and instabil- 



