826 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVII. No. 699 



nated in the condition: (a) that this name was 

 published and accompanied by an indication, or 

 a definition, or a description; and (6) that the 

 author has applied the principles of binary no- 

 menclature. 



This rule confirms what has been accepted 

 by zoologists a long time ago, that is to say, 

 that nomina nuda shall not be regarded as 

 established. Concerning the genera, all names 

 given in catalogues without any definition are 

 worthless. I am of the opinion that, also, 

 species figured without the addition of any 

 description can not be accepted. With re- 

 spect to the generic names, DoUfus' is of the 

 opinion that the worthless names rest without 

 value up to the date that they are accepted 

 in a valid publication of another author. This 

 may be correct, but the examples given by 

 Dollfus for the greater part must be refuted. 

 He says that the names of Bolten and Link 

 first acquired good standing in the cata- 

 logue of the Toldi collection published by 

 Morch in 1852. This catalogue, however, 

 having no definitions, is as completely worth- 

 less as the two others just mentioned. 



All the generic names of this catalogue, and 

 even some new ones, are given without diag- 

 nosis or any definition. Add to this that this 

 catalogue is not at all a scientific publication, 

 but the enumeration of a collection of shells 

 which were to be sold in public auction in 

 1852. The catalogues also of Humphrey and 

 Bolten are nothing but dealers' auction lists. 

 It is not from such dim sources that science 

 gets its fundamental elements. Quite in the 

 same way, we might consider newspapers sci- 

 entific publications. 



The catalogue of the collection of Eostock 

 studied by Link has never been published. 

 The entire edition has been destroyed by fire 

 and some proof-impressions have had the un- 

 deserved destiny of getting to be the object 

 of scientific communications. The catalogue 

 has never been reprinted, and even if it had 

 been published, we could not attribute to it 

 more value than to the similar elaborations 

 of Bolten and Morch. This opinion of the 

 auction catalogue of the Museum Boltenianum 



^ Rev. Grit. Palaeozool. de Cossmann, IX., 1905, 

 p. 55. 



has been expressed long since by the publica- 

 tions of P. Fischer," W. Eeferstein' and 0. 

 Semper." 



Dr. DaU has furnished no new data which 

 could justify the rehabilitation of these re- 

 jected names. During my recent journey to 

 Europe I have ascertained that my colleagues 

 in this respect retain this opinion. 



Another author who has been favored with 

 the rehabilitation of his names by W. H. DaU 

 is Martyn. As early as the year 1861 E. von 

 Martens" asserted that the " Universal Con- 

 chologist " of Martyn has no authority, because 

 the author is not strictly binomial. And I 

 can find no reason to agree with Dr. DaU in 

 thinking otherwise, being convinced that his 

 arguments are unsuccessful. In this respect 

 I have myself had an important experience. 

 Working in ornithology, I have been impressed 

 like almost aU American ornithologists with 

 the admirable publications of Brisson and I 

 have endeavored to rehabilitate his names, but 

 finally I have convinced myself that my en- 

 deavors must remain without success. Actu- 

 ally, I am completely sure that the interna- 

 tional rules are perfectly in the right in 

 driving from our nomenclature all the authors 

 who are not strictly binomial. I regret this 

 much in the case of Brisson but not in that 

 of Martyn. 



In my opinion, we not only have the right, 

 but even the obligation to reject all the generic 

 and specific names which are not formed ex- 

 actly after the rules contained in article 25, 

 and I therefore wish that Dr. DaU would give 

 up his isolated position and follow the example 

 of our other colleagues. I believe that he can 

 do this so much the more easily, since nobody 

 has contributed more to elucidate the sys- 

 tematic nomenclature than himself. Of all 

 his works, nothing will be lost in this case, 

 as these publications have been elaborated in 

 such a conscientious manner that we need only 

 eliminate the names of Bolten, Link, etc., and 



'Journ. de Conckyl., 1858, p. 206 flf. 

 * Malacozool. Blatter, X., 1862, p. 164 ff. 

 " Yerhand. d. Vereins f. natur. Unterhaltung, 

 Hamburg, V., 1875, p. 121. 



» Malacozool. Blatter, VII., 1861, p. 141 ff. 



