Atjgtjst 6, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



187 



A. C. Foster, B.S. (Alabama Polyteclinie), botany. 

 FranMin O. Church, B.S. (Rutgers), hydraulic 



engineering, 

 r. P. Schlatter, B.S. (Pennsylvania State), cran- 

 berry investigations. 



Dr. Francis Arthur Bainbridge, of the TTni- 

 versity of Durham, has been appointed to the 

 University of London chair of physiology ten- 

 able at St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical 

 School. 



DISCUSSION AND COBSESPONDENCE 



LOSING THE ADVANTAGES OF THE BESTOMIAL SYSTEM 

 OF NOMENCLATURE 



The communication from Dr. F. B. Sumner 

 which appeared in Science for June 18 last on 

 the subject of saving the genus as a category 

 of zoological classification, is certainly a timely 

 one, and expresses views that are by no means 

 confined to its author. It will require but 

 little examination of the facts to lead to the 

 conclusion that not the enforcement of the law 

 of priority, but unrestricted splitting of gen- 

 era, is responsible for most of the confusion 

 and instability which characterize zoological 

 nomenclature to-day, and makes it a source 

 of inconvenience and uncertainty, demanding 

 from scientific men much profitless labor, and 

 exi)€nditure of mental energy sufficient to 

 bring about important advances in science if 

 it could be turned into some useful channel. 



Few zoologists ever stop to think how far 

 we are getting away from a real binomial 

 system of nomenclature. It is true that scien- 

 tific names of animals still consist of two 

 words, but only in a minority of cases does 

 the first term of the binomial have any real 

 meaning to us, or suggest ideas of a much 

 broader and more comprehensive character 

 than the second one. The genus name has be- 

 come little more than a mere prefix to, or part 

 of, the species name. The addition of a few 

 more letters or syllables to the latter (to pre- 

 vent confusion of organisms which have 

 chanced to receive the same specific designa- 

 tion) would serve the same purpose. We learn 

 generic names, if we learn them at all, by 

 mere acts of memory, and we use them because 

 we find them in the latest monographs and 



might be thought not up to date if we did 

 otherwise, but what the distinctions are be- 

 tween these multitudes of closely allied genera 

 we rarely stop to inquire. Indeed, if we do 

 have interest enough to look up such points, 

 the slight importance and complexity of the 

 distinctions are apt to surprise and discour- 

 age us, and convince us that we had better 

 take the specialist's word for them, and spend 

 our time and labor in some more useful way. 

 In short, though our classification is binomial 

 in form, it is only very imperfectly so in effect. 



Even within the memory of some scientific 

 men living to-day, the system in use did still 

 afford the practical advantages which secured 

 the universal adoption of the system of Lin- 

 naeus. The recognized genera, though even 

 then being multiplied to an inconvenient ex- 

 tent, were stiU in a majority of cases separated 

 by sufficiently well-marked characters and not 

 as yet too numerous to enable the professional 

 zoologist and even the more serious amateur 

 students of the science to recognize by name 

 and classify a large proportion of the genera, 

 and to recall some of their more important 

 characters. A genus name had in those days 

 a real meaning to some others besides the spe- 

 cialists in the class of animals to which the 

 genus happened to belong. 



It would be a mistake to maintain that zoo- 

 logical classification has suffered through the 

 recognition of these minor subdivisions. They 

 exist in nature, and should have a recognition 

 commensurate with their importance. The 

 older and more comprehensive genera are now 

 in many cases treated as subfamilies or fam- 

 ilies. Classification has gained in exactness 

 and truthful representation of the facts, but 

 through our neglect to keep the first term of 

 our scientific names comprehensive in its ap- 

 plication, and easily distinguished and re- 

 membered in its meaning, we have allowed 

 our nomenclature to lose most of the practical 

 advantages and conveniences of the Linnsean 

 system. 



Unfortunately, specialists, as Dr. Sumner has 

 hinted, are only too apt to study their speci- 

 mens till they see only differences and lose 

 sight of much more important resemblances, 



