Mat 22, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



827 



take the next name proposed by a binomial 

 author which is accompanied by a definition. 



Hermann von Ihering 

 Sao Paulo, 

 March 7, 1908 



"With the feelings expressed in the letter of 

 my friend, Dr. von Ihering, I have much 

 sympathy, as a quarter of a century ago I 

 myself experienced similar feelings, expressed 

 similar opinions and accepted as exact similar 

 statements by older authors in regard to the 

 publications of Link and some other authors, 

 which greater knowledge and more experience 

 have led me to regard as more or less er- 

 roneous. 



To be brief. Dr. von Ihering asks us to 

 reject all names unaccompanied by a diagnosis 

 or definition. 



But this is not the requirement of the inter- 

 national code of nomenclature. Excluding 

 " diagnosis " and " definition " as universally 

 accepted, the code also admits names " accom- 

 panied by an indication." Now, if an indica- 

 tion is not a diagnosis or a definition, what 

 is it? Plainly, a recognizable figure or refer- 

 ence to another work where a figure, or defini- 

 tion, or both, will be found. I believe I am 

 historically accurate in saying that the word 

 " indication " was intentionally inserted in 

 the code to cover exactly such cases. If it 

 were otherwise it is clearly a superfluity in 

 the paragraph of the code just referred to. 



It can not be denied that the possession of 

 an exquisitely accurate drawing of an animal, 

 like those of Martyn, is calculated to give a 

 far better knowledge of what the author had 

 in mind than the three or four lines of dog- 

 Latin, without a figure, often used by the 

 ancient binomial authors. 



And, if an author refers to page, plate and 

 figure of a standard iconography, for the illus- 

 tration and diagnosis of the animal he has in 

 mind, in what respect is the diagnosis less 

 effective than if it had been reprinted? 



I am, therefore, confident that my friend's 

 major premise is not well taken, but that the 

 code expressly provides for such cases and 

 properly accepts such indications. 



We must remember that authors, from Lin- 



nffius to Lamarck, and even later, did not feel 

 themselves obliged to accept the prior " nomen 

 triviale " given by another author, but altered 

 and changed to suit their own notions. Thus 

 Gmelin, Lamarck and others borrowed Mar- 

 tyn's names, sometimes retaining his specific 

 name, sometimes adopting his generic name, 

 but rarely giving full credit. The binomiality 

 of Martyn was not questioned by Gmelin or 

 Lamarck, or other contemporaneous writers. 

 I have shown that his names are quite as 

 binomial as those of Linnseus. And von Mar- 

 tens, cited by Dr. von Ihering as rejecting 

 Martyn, proposed to accept his specific names, 

 while rejecting his generic names, because the 

 latter conflicted with those which were more 

 familiar. Martens himself was not above 

 altering a prior generic name because it did 

 not agree with his assumptions, and, though 

 a most able and learned man, is not to be 

 regarded as an authority on matters of nomen- 

 clature. 



When a scientific man prepares an original 

 systematic catalogue of a collection in his cus- 

 tody, is the scientific character lost because 

 when that collection comes to be sold, this 

 catalogue is printed for the use of buyers ? I 

 do not see why. An " auctioneer's catalogue " 

 implies a catalogue made by an auctioneer and 

 not by a scientific man. But Bolten, Hwass, 

 Link and Morch were scientific men, or even 

 professors of zoology. Why then reject their 

 work? I think each case must stand on its 

 own merits. 



In the case of Link, I formerly believed the 

 tradition that the whole edition of the work 

 had been burned, but I now think this tradi- 

 tion erroneous, on account of the number of 

 copies of Link which have turned up. We 

 have two in the National Museum library, and 

 references to his system, which was taught to 

 his students in the University of Eostock, are 

 not very infrequent in the publications of his 

 contemporaries. At any rate, Link, whose 

 work was published as a university program, 

 gives diagnoses and references to icono- 

 graphies; so in that respect he is qualified 

 to meet Dr. von Ihering's standard. 



I have always been of the opinion that con- 

 sistency required the rejection of Brisson's 



