October 20, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



4Vjl 



we might give way to our tastes or prejudices 

 in the choice of names. Most of us would 

 rather say Amphioxus than Branchiostoma, 

 Pterichthys than Pterichthyodes, Lucioperca 

 than Stizostedion. But if we transgress our 

 rules and use the later name or the preoc- 

 cupied name in these familiar examples, we 

 have no case against the man who follows his 

 own whims throughout the series. We must 

 either use the oldest names throughout, or else 

 let anybody call anything what he pleases. 

 This means absolute chaos in all lines of study 

 where nomenclature is required. 



The present code seems in all respects ad- 

 mirable. It covers the ground more fully 

 than any other. In other words, it eliminates 

 more successfully all the elements of whim, 

 taste or individual preference. It is well to 

 have names euphonious, descriptive and cor- 

 rectly formed. It is almost infinitely more 

 important to have them stable, and there is no 

 other way to stability save the rigid enforce- 

 ment of rules which find their origin in the 

 conditions of science itself. 



In this code, zoological nomenclature is re- 

 garded as separate from botanical, though 

 parallel with it. The law of priority is held 

 paramount and nomenclature dates from 1758, 

 the tenth edition of the ' Systema Naturas ' of 

 Linnaeus. No name is to be changed because 

 of incorrect spelling or formation, nor rejected 

 on account of inappropriateness. Generic 

 names spelled differently are held to be dis- 

 tinct names, for a name is known by its 

 spelling. Tautonomy (Anguilla anguilla and 

 the like) is permitted. ' Once a synonym 

 always a synonym ' is a maxim adopted with 

 an exact definition. 



Some parts of the code are not sufficiently 

 full. For example, the status of generic 

 names of non-binomial authors subsequent to 

 Linnaeus is not clearly stated. Thus in 1763, 

 Gronow published a number of genera of 

 fishes, the species tinder each being given in 

 polynomials. In other words, he recognized 

 genera but did not adopt the binary system 

 of Linnaeus. The code does not leave it clear 

 whether these post-Linnaean non-binominal 

 genera should be adopted. 



Mr. Stejneger (in letter, February 25, 1905) 



states that it was the judgment of the com- 

 mission that the genera of non-binomial au- 

 thors, dating after 1758, should be admitted. 

 In the Code (Article 2) it states that ' the 

 scientific designation of animals is uninomial 

 for subgenera and all higher groups.' Ac- 

 cording to Stejneger, ' The rule applied to the 

 generic term would be that the valid name of 

 a genus can be only that name by which it 

 was first designated on the condition that the 

 author has applied the principles of the inter- 

 national rules by using a nominal designation.' 

 Under this ruling: 



Brisson and the others (Gronow, etc.) have ap- 

 plied the principle in question so far as generic 

 names are concerned, and their generic names are, 

 therefore, valid, while their binominals or tri- 

 nominals are not valid though they may appear 

 (accidentally) like true specific or subspecific 

 names. The monomials are true generic names 

 and must stand as such. 



Another class of names claiming priority is 

 not touched at all by this code. Klein (about 

 1744) defined a large number of genera of 

 fishes. In a post-Linnaean compilation of 

 Walbaum (' Artedi Piscium,' 1792), the diag- 

 noses of all these pre-Linnaean genera are re- 

 printed, although without formal adoption 

 into the binomial system. These genera are 

 mononomially defined, at a later date than 

 1758, and there is no doubt as to the species 

 intended to be included in them. If these 

 names had been original with Walbaum, they 

 would be accepted without question. What is 

 their status as reprints in a compilation? 



The article (30) fixing the type of a com- 

 posite genus is inadequate, and gives evidence 

 of compromise among conflicting views. It 

 is here that much of the present trouble in 

 zoological nomenclature arises. The para- 

 graph in question reads : 



If the original type of a genus was not indi- 

 cated, the author who first subdivides the group 

 may aj^ply the name of the original genus to 

 such restricted genus or subgenus as may be 

 judged advisable, and such assignment is not sub- 

 ject to subsequent change. 



This looks simple, but in practise it needs 

 further definition. Many revisers have re- 

 stricted the old genus to species with which 



