Mat 26, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



815 



then I began to entertain doubts as to the 

 approval of posterity, the best kind of founda- 

 tions, etc. I began to lose faith in the law of 

 priority as a cure-all for nomenclatural ills. 

 For the real burden of nomenclature will be 

 but little altered by the strictest application 

 of this law. At worst (and surely the worst 

 is now in sight) it will have added but a little 

 dead weight of stupid and unnecessary con- 

 fusion — so little, indeed, it would hardly be 

 noticeable were not the load already at the 

 endurance limit. With all the arduous labor 

 now required of any youth for gaining even 

 an elemental conception of the world's accu- 

 mulated store of knowledge, why should any 

 man, even though a profound scholar, familiar 

 with the intricacies of his own field, so far 

 forget or minimize the difficulties of the long 

 way by which he has come as to be willing to 

 leave the path harder for the nest comer. 

 Ought not the way that leads to a working 

 knowledge of plants and animals to be as easy 

 and plain as we can possibly make it ? I think 

 so. And so thinking, I ventured to propose, 

 after long consideration, the simplification 

 that is now under discussion. 



My plan would accept the facts of nature as 

 they are — exceedingly complicated. They are 

 not more complex under one system than 

 under another. And it is a great error to 

 assume that because facts are numerous and 

 relations complex, the method of handling 

 them must be equally so. 



My plan would accept human nature as it 

 is — exceedingly prone to differences of opin- 

 ion; yet, withal, able often to agree upon 

 such matters as dates of publication. 



My plan would accept the results of the 

 application of the law of priority in toto, con- 

 serving all the good work that has been done 

 by the zoologists of the world in their search 

 of early literature. It would keep the results 

 of this work forever accessible, without ma- 

 king of its by-products stumbling blocks in 

 the way of beginners, of general students, and 

 of the increasing thousands who may have an 

 interest in biological sciences. This work is 

 of great historic value. It is worth while to 

 have all the old and unused names set in their 



proper order and sequence. But to have any 

 such of tliem as have lain buried during the 

 growth of a great literature, used when ex- 

 humed to replace the names about which that 

 literature has grown, making its treasures less 

 accessible, is a lamentable abuse of the his- 

 toric method.'' Let us accept the good work 

 that has been done in determining priority at 

 its historical value, and then let us use it like 

 rational beings for our assistance, without 

 making it a source of embarrassment for 

 future generations. 



My plan would accept the Linnsean system 

 as it is, recognizing species as real entities 

 that have received and that will continue to 

 receive names. Were Linnseus resurrected to- 

 day, he might have difficulty in recognizing 

 his own system, in its present dropsical con- 

 dition. Those who value it so highly should 

 at least remember that, whatever it has be- 

 come, it was in the beginning simply and 

 solely an effort at simplification of nomen- 

 clature. 



The matter of numbering species is so 

 simple it is hard to understand how any diffi- 

 culty is found in applying it. Given a list 

 of the names now recognized in any group 

 written down in their original form and in 

 their historic sequence, any common clerk 

 could affix the numerals correctly. Their 

 stability would be assured by the only means 

 whereby anything becomes stable — by adoption 

 and use. Any one who will read my proposal 

 with reasonable care will see (1) that it ac- 

 cepts every name exactly as given by its 

 author, and finds a place for it in its proper 

 sequence; (2) that it matters not at aU where 

 we begin numbering, and (3) that it matters 

 not at all whether Balanoglossus and the 

 tunicates are fishes or not. 



I regret Dr. Jordan did not see these things, 

 for then he might have saved space for a 

 statement of the inherent law of nomencla- 

 ture. Formulation of it is badly needed. 



*My proposal, however, was to let the principal 

 workers in any group decide upon the names to 

 be used in it. If those who study lancelets do not 

 wish to use the name Amphioxus, neither do I 

 wish to use it. 



