Januabt 25, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



147 



I can not, therefore, see in the first species 

 rule any inherently just principle, nor can I 

 see in the processes which it is designed to 

 supplant any corresponding inherently unjust 

 principle, which indicates that future genera- 

 tions of zoologists would abide by the rule if 

 adopted. Accordingly, I am unable to view 

 this proposed legislation as advisable. 



All, or practically all, systematic zoologists 

 recognize that the principle of priority is in- 

 herently just. It commands respect, even 

 though it irritates us occasionally. We apply 

 it to generic names, without a murmur, or at 

 least without murmuring very loud. If this 

 principle is just when applied to the generic 

 names, why is it not equally just when applied 

 to the generic types? In the one case as in 

 the other, the author who applies it must know 

 the literature. As a matter of fact, the status 

 of no generic name is satisfactorily estab- 

 lished, from the modern point of view, until 

 the type is designated. But when this type 

 is once designated, by any method whatsoever, 

 so long as the species selected was an original 

 species, valid from the original author's point 

 of view, and unreservedly classified in his 

 genus, why reopen the question? At that 

 date the generic name first complied with all 

 of the formal conditions which can reasonably 

 be demanded of it. Why now reverse the 

 decision of the author who took this step, even 

 if you or I would have done it in a somewhat 

 different manner ? If he selected the type on 

 the first species rule, or if he did so on some 

 other rule, or on no rule at all, the point can 

 still be objectively demonstrated that the type 

 was actually designated. This point being 

 established, the question should be settled once 

 for all. A genus can not have two separate 

 type species; if, therefore, any author has 

 definitely designated a type species for any 

 given genus (regardless of his method), how 

 can we establish another type species for it? 

 To do so, by legislation or otherwise, is to 

 weaken the very foundation of nomenclature 

 — namely, the principle of the law of priority. 



The discussion on this very live subject in 

 nomenclature has convinced me more than 

 ever of the justice of a rule to the effect that 

 no new generic name published after a given 



date, say January 1, 1908, shall be entitled 

 to consideration unless its author definitely 

 designates a type at the time of its publica- 

 tion. If American zoologists approve of this 

 proposition (several systematists have already 

 signified their approval), I am willing to do 

 what I can to have it inserted in the Interna- 

 tional Code. I believe it would be wiser to 

 make such a rule retroactive (namely, to date 

 all genera from the time their types were 

 designated) than to adopt the first species 

 rule at this late day. 



Ch. Wardell Stiles 

 Washington, D. C. 



the first species rule versus elimination 

 Discussions concerning the adoption of the 

 first species rule for fixing the types of genera 

 have been so generally accompanied by ex- 

 travagant statements of the probable revolu- 

 tion that would be thus occasioned in our 

 nomenclature that there seemed to be a need 

 for some statement of the matter based on 

 fact and not on theory, and my recent article 

 in Science was intended largely to supply this 

 need. I had no thought of starting a lengthy 

 controversy, nor do I desire to do so now. As 

 my friend Dr. Allen in his recent comments 

 upon my paper relies mainly upon general 

 statements and does not prove any of my 

 facts or figures to be inaccurate, he does not 

 impair the strength of my argument and there 

 would be no call for a reply were it not that 

 he claims that I have been (doubtless uncon- 

 sciously) led into a few misleading state- 

 ments. These so far as I gather from his 

 article are: 



1. " That elimination has never been prac- 

 tised in Europe and does not seem to be under- 

 stood by foreign writers." I was perfectly 

 well aware that the ' first reviser ' principle 

 was incorporated in the B A Code of 1842, and 

 in most others, i. e., "that when no type is 

 indicated the author who first subdivides a 

 composite genus may restrict the original 

 name to such part of it as he may deem 

 advisable." But I claim that so far as birds 

 are concerned the first revisers in the vast 

 majority of cases have restricted the original 

 name to the first species and its allies and 



