January 6, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



27 



Zoological nomenclature has received heroic 

 treatment during the past ten or fifteen years. 

 The dilBculties which had arisen in the nat- 

 ural course of development under the Lin- 

 nsean system had led to numerous isolated 

 efforts for their correction until finally an 

 attempt has been made to remedy the evils 

 under the control of a central organization 

 which has been so firmly established by zoolo- 

 gists as to be at present beyond their control 

 and swayed by laws alone. Yet even such an 

 autocratic and omnipotent body has not suc- 

 ceeded in doing more than increasing the 

 difficulties of the situation. It really seems 

 as if the problem requires more radical meas- 

 ures for its solution. The present plan of 

 organization is incapable of coping with the 

 complications which have arisen in the rapid 

 expansion of biological knowledge during the 

 last half century. Personally, I am convinced 

 that the Linnsean system offers no probability 

 of meeting the situation. Of this there may 

 be some question, but there is abundant evi- 

 dence to show that the existing zoological 

 nomenclature is meeting with wide-spread 

 criticism and does not command the support 

 to be expected of so fundamental a system. 

 Indirect but weighty evidence of this may be 

 found in the fact that the use of common 

 names is increasing and that a larger propor- 

 tion of biological workers than ever before are 

 avowedly indifferent to the use of technically 

 correct scientific names. 



Present conditions are denominated unsat- 

 isfactory by able men in many places and in 

 diverse special lines of work in the general 

 field. The most important general criticisms 

 of the existing conditions may be stated 

 briefly as follows: 



1. Laclc of Stability. — Present nomencla- 

 ture by law depends upon the accuracy of the 

 past and upon the completeness of our knowl- 

 edge concerning its work. At any time dem- 

 onstration of an error in statement or of an 

 omission in the references to previous work 

 may overturn a name or series of names and 

 throw all the literature on the group into 

 confusion. New laws and new rulings are 

 made with the same result, for in our eilort 



to out-Herod Herod we go further than the 



law, that most conservative of professions, has 

 ever gone. We make and enforce ex post 

 facto laws which upset the established prac- 

 tise of a century. 



2. Overemphasis upon Trivial Features. — 

 Page-long discussions recur constantly on the 

 acceptance of ^'s name or B's name and both 

 sides argue with apparent justice and at in- 

 terminable length. Articles follow hard on 

 each other's heels dealing exclusively with the 

 spelling of names : Shall it be somum or 

 soma? Shall one write nni or nii? And the 

 questions are never decided, for even the high 

 priests of the movement differ in their views 

 and their practises, and the great majority of 

 biological workers pay little attention to the 

 strife because they feel the issues are trivial. 

 Now the real meat of the question is the 

 thing and not its name. And all this energy 

 devoted to a study of the animal itself would 

 yield much of value to science. The work- 

 man does not care whether A ot B gives him 

 his tools; he wants a tool and wants it sharp, 

 because he wants to do work with it. He is 

 rightly impatient of so much hair splitting to 

 so little purpose, but he does look forward to 

 the time when in some way this energy may 

 be diverted into productive channels. 



3. Exaltation of Error. — If a tyro commits 

 an error, if a neophyte goes astray or makes a 

 foolish move, we are accustomed in science 

 otherwise to consign his work to kindly ob- 

 livion, but in nomenclature this may not be. 

 The skeleton of his misbirth must be hung in 

 the public hall of the systematic museum, 

 to dangle its misshapen bones before both 

 students and visitors for all time. There is 

 no other option possible to-day under the laws * 

 of nomenclature. A mistake once incorpo- 

 rated in the literature of biology must forever 

 remain there, even though apparent to the 

 man of education at a glance. The most con- 

 servative theologian would hesitate to support 

 such an inflexible demand for the mainte- 

 nance of the past, errors and all. And the 

 very fact that able and zealous advocates of 

 present nomenclature contend there is no 

 other way under the present system compels 



