Maech 10, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



373 



But perhaps it will be best to begin at the 

 bottom of the series. The lancelet is the low- 

 est fish, if (1) it is a fish, and (2) if the Tuni- 

 cates, and the Balanoglossi are not also fishes. 

 If we number the fishes from 1 to 40,000, we 

 shall have to decide beforehand as to the na- 

 ture of tunicates, lancelets, lampreys, chi- 

 mseras and sharks as well as that of their 

 various extinct relatives. Apparently the only 

 safe way will be to number the species after 

 another, each in the genus in which it was 

 originally placed. In that case, the genus 

 may go where it will, the species will hold 

 their numbers. 



In 17Y4, Pallas named the lancelet, Limax 

 lanceolatus. But it is not a Limax. Limax 

 is a land-slug. Must we wait till other shell- 

 less snails or Limax are numbered, before we 

 can list our first fish. Let us chance it as 

 Limax 75 and keep it with the fishes if we can. 



In 1834, Costa named this same lancelet 

 BrancMostoma lubricum. Branchiostoma 1 is 

 therefore equivalent to Limax Y5. But the 

 species should not be called lubricum, but 

 lanceolatum. This Yarrell recognized in 

 1836, calling it Amphioxus lanceolatus, bring- 

 ing up the old specific name. But his generic 

 name, new and useless, has been the source of 

 much subsequent trouble. In any case the 

 species is not Amphioxus 1, because it does 

 not start with Amphioxus. It was known 

 sixty years before the time of Tarrell. 



Our next fish is Branchiostoma caribwum of 

 Sundevall in 1853. This is a doubtful species, 

 most likely the same as B. lanceolatum, but it 

 may stand as Branchiostoma 2. Branchios- 

 toma Calif orniense Gill 1893 may be Branchi- 

 ostoma 3, and the remaining lancelets are 

 scattered over the world, some recorded as 

 Amphioxus, most as Branchiostoma. 



It is not necessary to follow this further. 

 The same conditions prevail throughout zool- 

 ogy. The fact is that our present Linnaean 

 system of naming species and groups in zool- 

 ogy or botany is still the best which has been 

 devised or suggested. It has the right of way 

 through one hundred and fifty years of usage. 

 All present taxonomy is based upon it. Its 

 embarrassments are due chiefly to the diffi- 



culties injberent in the subject, and to the 

 limitations of human nature. 



The changes in names of the last thirty 

 years have been, on the whole, in the direction 

 of final stability. The zoologists of the world 

 have devised machinery which will steadily 

 make for permanence, and the necessary 

 period of transition is one from lawlessness to 

 law, from confusion to science. In so far as 

 we have confusion this has arisen through 

 neglect or ignorance of law. It can not be 

 remedied by further neglect. A writer dealing 

 with scientific names must either call an ani- 

 mal or plant whatever he pleases, or else he 

 must conform to regulations inherent in the 

 nature of his work. Arbitrary rules will soon 

 be disregarded. The necessary regulations are 

 those which future workers will approve, and 

 we, who are still working in the infancy of 

 taxonomy, must lay foundations on which the 

 future can build. 



In view of the great issues which depend on 

 accuracy of method, such minor issues as that 

 we rather say Amphioxus than Branchiostoma, 

 or that it suits us better to call the common eel 

 Anguilla vulgaris rather than Anguilla 

 anguilla, or that our collection is labeled ac- 

 cording to the method of Cuvier, sink into in- 

 significance. Tou can say Amphioxus if you 

 like — or Bdellostoma. We shall know what 

 you mean, but we shall not try to force these 

 names back into nomenclature, replacing 

 older and legitimate names already becoming 

 better known to the actual worker in taxonomy 

 than these names of temporary convenience 

 ever were or ever will be. 



David Starr Jordan 



STANTOBD IjNIVEKSITy 



THE USE OF SYMBOLS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- 

 CLATURE 



At first thought. Dr. Needham's suggestion* 

 that in substance we designate what are prac- 

 tically subgenera, species and so on, by sym- 

 bols does give more or less of a shock. Never- 



' Science, N. S., XXXII., pp. 295-300, Septem- 

 ber 2, 1910; see also ih., pp. 428-429, September 

 30, 1910, and XXXIII., pp. 25-29, January 6, 

 1011. 



