July 26, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



117 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 

 DR. Montgomery's proposed amendment to 



THE RULES OF NOMENCLATURE 



Dr. Montgomery's communication to Sci- 

 ence of July 5, seems to be based partly on 

 a misconception of the meaning of the word 

 " indication " in Art. 25, | a. 



This word is generally understood to cover 

 cases where a name newly proposed is based 

 (1) on a reference to a previously published 

 description or figure; or (2) on a figure ac- 

 companying the new name; or (3) on a list of 

 previously established species now first asso- 

 ciated in a new group. 



That a new name in zoology might be based 

 on a mere reference to an otherwise unnamed 

 specimen in a museum, is a proposition which 

 would hardly be maintained by any one, and 

 which Dr. Montgomery hardly needed to con- 

 demn. 



But Dr. Montgomery's other suggestion, 

 that a name must be accompanied by a de- 

 scription, and that this description must be 

 " adequate " or the figure " recognizable," is a 

 reversion to a state of mind from which, or 

 rather from the consequences of which, modern 

 nomenclature has been struggling for half a 

 century to free itself. It would perhaps have 

 been as well if the original requirement of 

 some sort of a description had been main- 

 tained, not because the description in itself 

 would have been of great value, but because 

 this rule would have eliminated from con- 

 sideration many publications which have 

 added greatly to the complexity of nomencla- 

 torial problems. However, it is too late now 

 to recede, in regard to this point. But the 

 determination of what is or is not " adequate," 

 or " recognizable," would plunge the investi- 

 gator into a morass of personal opinions 

 which would render any attempt at a stable 

 nomenclature hopeless.' William H. Dall 



Smithsonian Institution, 

 July 9, 1907 



THE rules of nomenclature 



In Science of July 5, Dr. Montgomery so 

 well stated the opinion held by naturalists 

 who require that something more than an 

 " indication " should accompany a name be- 



fore it merits adoption into zoological nomen- 

 clature, that space need not be taken to 

 elaborate his argument, and my purpose is only 

 to lay stress upon an additional need which 

 follows logically. 



There will always be many to whom the 

 proposition that in naming systematic groups 

 we are naming objects, not concepts, is philo- 

 sophically unacceptable, and to these persons 

 concepts must be deiined before they can be 

 named. Such naturalists now and always 

 will require that a generic name, like those of 

 higher groups, must be associated with a 

 definition which, as a concession to lack of 

 knowledge at an earlier day, may be incom- 

 plete, but must not be actually erroneous or 

 contradictory to the facts which at a later 

 day it is sought to bring under it. 



An example of the anomalous and absurd 

 result sometimes reached by the contrary 

 practise under the Draconian law of uncor- 

 rected priority is found in the water snakes. 

 This group has been generally known under 

 the name Tropidorwtus Kuhl (1826), Cope in 

 1888 substituted Natrix Laurenti (1768) on 

 the ground that while Natrix was a hetero- 

 geneous collection, its type was Natrix vulgaris 

 (== T. natrix) the type of Tropidonotus, and 

 in this he has been followed by some Ameri- 

 can herpetologists. Now Laurenti's definition 

 of Natrix was as shapeless as definitions 

 usually were in his time. Loosely rendered 

 it is: "Head shielded with flat scales; 

 flattened and triangular; the hinder part 

 broad ; in front contracted to the snout. Body 

 smooth and shining; narrower behind the 

 head; the middle between the head and end 

 of tail much thicker. Tail conical, elongated 

 and attenuated." The one character of value 

 in identification, " Truncus glaher nitidus," is 

 all there is in the definition that might not 

 be applied to almost any snalce known, and 

 yet the method of " type by tautonomy " ap- 

 plies the name to a group having the exactly 

 opposite character of most conspicuously 

 rough, keeled scales. Indeed, few snakes are 

 more at fault with Laurenti's language. Lau- 

 renti named under Natrix twenty-two species, 

 of which eight are unrecognizable and the re- 



