JiLY 5, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



19 



BISCVSSIOX AXD CORRESPOXDEXCE 



A NECESSARY AMENDMENT IN THE APPLICATION 



OF THE LAW OF PRIORITY IN ZOOLOGICAL 



NOMENCLATURE 



The keystone of all nomenclature of species 

 and genera is the rigid and exceptionless ap- 

 plication of the law of priority; without it 

 no uniformity could be attained. There is 

 practically complete agreement on this point 

 among all who have had considerable experi- 

 ence in the definition of genera and species, 

 that is, among those who best understand the 

 diiEculties of reaching ultimate agreement. 



Now the International Code of Zoological 

 Nomenclature has adopted the following : 



Art. 25. The valid name of a genus or species 

 can be only that name under which it was first 

 designated on the condition: 



(a) That this name was published and accom- 

 panied by an indication, or a definition, or a 

 description; and 



(6) That the author has applied the principles 

 of binary nomenclature. 



It is clear that the ruling of clause (a) 

 allows too much laxity and is too indefinite. 

 The amendment that has probably occurred 

 to others, and that I would urge as most 

 necessary, is the change of clause (a) to read 

 as follows : 



That this name was published accompanied by 

 a published recognizable description or by a pub- 

 lished recognizable drawing. 



Publication is to be understood as meaning 

 expression in print ; and " recognizable," a de- 

 scription or drawing sufficiently accurate and 

 detailed for distinguishing the species or 

 genus named from any other species or genus 

 known at the time when the name was ap- 

 plied. A few considerations among many may 

 be mentioned to justify this amendment. 



In the first place, as the code rules at 

 present it is only necessary for a systematist 

 to publish a name in accordance with the 

 other rules of binary nomenclature, and to 

 give an " indication," indicating, e. g., a par- 

 ticular type specimen in a particular collec- 

 tion; he is really not obliged to give any de- 

 scription whatsoever, or he may give an in- 

 different or even an inaccurate description 

 provided he makes this indication. In time 



this loophole will lead to the utmost con- 

 fusion; it would be impossible to get any idea 

 of a newly named species without resource to 

 the type specimen. This is the main reason 

 for eliminating from the clause in question 

 the vague and meaningless word " indication " 

 — vag-ue and meaningless unless it signifies 

 the indication of a particular specimen. 

 Surely it is not the spirit of scientific nomen- 

 clature to point to a specimen as an idea! 



In the second place, it is becoming more 

 and more necessary that the name should be 

 accompanied by a recognizable description or 

 drawing. There are many of the most modern 

 systematists, as well as large numbers of the 

 earlier ones, whose diagiioses are worthless for 

 purposes of positive identification. These 

 diagnoses either do not mention the important 

 characteristics, or do not describe them fully 

 or accurately enough, or else do not draw 

 comparisons with the closely allied forms. If 

 there is one thing we want to get out of the 

 description of a new species, it is the item 

 of how it differs from the known forms of 

 the same group. Such descriptions are a posi- 

 tive hindrance to systematic progress, they 

 may even arrest it entirely. They are scien- 

 tifically valueless, they vilify the journals con- 

 taining them. Under the present code one 

 must have resource to the type specimen. 

 Suppose then I am monographing a particular 

 group, and find in the literature some papers 

 in which the descriptions are practically 

 meaningless ; then I must ask for the loan of 

 the specimens ; but they may be in a museum 

 the rules of which forbid the loaning of types ; 

 then I must in i)erson visit that museum to 

 find perhaps that the specimens have been 

 mutilated beyond recall or have even been 

 lost. Or should I wish to undertake the re- 

 vision of the species of a comprehensive genus, 

 say Epeira or BulimuluSj then I should have 

 to undertake a Weltreise, for which my 

 finances would probably be inadequate, and 

 visit practically every museum in the world. 

 Then everyone knows how type specimens suf- 

 fer from handling, how perishable the average 

 dried or alcoholic specimen is. The mere 

 statement that a type specimen exists in such 

 a collection is not the spread of a scientific 



