Septembee 2, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



299 



(nos. 1-12 and 16-18) were described under 

 another generic name (Agrion) older than 

 Lestes. 



It seems to me obvious that this system will 

 provide a convenient means of handling an 

 indefinite increase of our systematic knowl- 

 edge in the future, while at once and forever 

 putting an end to the multiplication of the 

 names that every one must use within the 

 group. 



Let the principal systematic workers in a 

 large group select the names to be retained in 

 that group — say, as many of them as there are 

 subfamilies in the group, and let these names 

 be selected on the basis of fitness/ The bal- 

 ance is automatic. Let the International 

 Commission have the final word to say in case 

 of differences of opinion as to names. Let the 

 commission issue the lists as ready, and let 

 each issue " spike the guns of priority." If a 

 mistake be made in the historical order of some 

 entry, no matter : let the entry stand ; add if 

 you must for the few occasions when it will be 

 of any consequence some conventional sign to 

 indicate that the order has been violated in 

 this case. Then we will have stability. 



There are, among other things, three points 

 to be guarded in considering the change like 

 that here proposed. Will it sacrifice the past ? 

 Will it impede the future? Will it be too 

 troublesome or too costly to initiate? With 

 regard to the first of these I believe that the 

 selection of the fittest generic names will do 

 more than anything else can do to preserve 

 our best traditions. Thus we may be able to 

 put back on duty again such names as Cor- 

 ethra, Chironomus, Amphioxus and a host of 

 others that have been cast aside as lightly as 

 though they had never filled leading roles in 

 zoological classics. 



The elimination of specific names is a dif- 

 ferent matter. When they are such pleasing 

 and companionable names as Lestes psyche, 



' Fitness, in my judgment, would consist in : 

 First, familiarity through long usage. Why sac- 

 rifice the benefits that come from having brain 

 paths well broken? Next, significance, euphony 

 and brevity. Next, etymological correctness. Last 

 and least, priority when dissociated from usage. 



L. io an-?. L. leda of de Selys, I admit I shall 

 miss them. But there are more of them I 

 should be glad to miss, because they are bar- 

 barisms or misfits and give offense, or because 

 they are overburdensome to carry. But good 

 and bad, I consider their elimination from a 

 standard list of the world fauna inevitable, 

 simply because the cost of retaining them for 

 use everywhere has become excessive. 



Generic names now answer fully nine tenths 

 of our needs. We do not often use specific 

 names except in the groups in which we are 

 specialists — saving, of course, in the case 

 of the more familiar species among the higher 

 vertebrates; and here we have common names 

 which have become of late our chief reliance. 



Others have expressed the opinion that the 

 names of the future will be fiat.^ The appli- 

 cation of the Dewey system of numbers to 

 species was long ago proposed. I believe, 

 however, that within normal endurance limits, 

 names are better than numbers for designating 

 things, quite aside from any traditional value 

 they may possess : at least names are more nat- 

 ural to us. So, retaining a name for each 

 group of such size as a biological layman may 

 be supposed to need a name for, I have then 

 proceeded to treat subgroups and species with 

 designations that are in a small part fiat, and 

 in a large part not so. Historical order is the 

 essence of the method, and this is surely not 

 fiat. And the designations proposed are not 

 in fact so diiferent from those to which we are 

 by usage more accustomed. E, F and (? ap- 

 pended to the old group name Ephemera would 

 surely be more easy to handle than the three 

 elongated numerals which Walsh left us for 

 designating its subdivisions, Pentagenia, Hex- 

 agenia and Heptagenia. No one would think 

 of protesting should I name three new species 

 of any genus quintus, sextus and Septimus. 



These designations, although very brief, al- 

 low for the recording of every advance in sys- 

 tematic knowledge. Every new genus is re- 

 tained and each species, forever recognizable 

 by its specific designation, may be shifted 



" See, for example, the article by Jonathan 

 Dwight, Jr., in Science, N. S., 30, 527, for Oc- 

 tober 15, 1909. 



