492 



scim^cE 



[N. S. Vol. XLII. No. 1084 



DISCUSSION AND COMBESPONDENCE 



CONVENIENCE VERSUS FITNESS 



In recent numbers of Science a series of 

 articles^ has appeared pleading for the conser- 

 vation of the genus as known in the early days 

 of biology, to the sacrifice of explicitness in 

 nomenclatural recognition of the modern in- 

 crease in morphological knowledge. 



As clearly recognized by Sumner^ this is a 

 continuation of the plea of convenience in 

 behalf of the status quo that has marked re- 

 cent controversies over zoological and botan- 

 ical nomenclature, and is voiced by and in 

 behalf of the same classes of objectors — ^the gen- 

 eral zoologist, the amateur, the college pro- 

 fessor, and the " true nature lover." The case 

 of the protestants has been quite fully and ably 

 presented in the first paper of the series, and 

 somewhat amplified and further illustrated by 

 the other two contributors. To reply to their 

 points seriatim is beyond the scope of the 

 present article, but a few words may be offered 

 from the other point of view, that of the be- 

 rated " taxonomists." 



In the opening article of the series it is said : 



But there is another perennial source of con- 

 fusion which has not received adequate attention. 

 Apparently it is regarded as quite unavoidable, or 

 perhaps it is not commonly thought of as a diffi- 

 culty of nomenclature at all. I refer to the con- 

 tinual changing of names that results from the 

 subdivision of genera. . . . And if we look for 

 the distinctions upon which these subdivisions are 

 based, we commonly find that the differences are 

 very trifling indeed in comparison with the many 

 and detailed points of resemblance between these 

 various groups.s 



The same author further states : 



... it must be borne in mind that in the 



1 Sumner, F. B., ' ' Some Reasons for Saving the 

 Genus," Science, N. S., XLI., No. 1068, pp. 899- 

 902, June 18, 1915. Van Name, Willard G., 

 "Losing the Advantages of the Binomial System 

 of Nomenclature," Science, N. S., XLII., No. 

 1075, pp. 187-189, August 6, 1915. Colton, Har- 

 old S.j "Another Reason for Saving the Genus," 

 Science, N. S., XLII., No. 1079, pp. 307, 308, Sep- 

 tember 3, 1915. 



2i. c, p. 899. 



s Sumner, I. c, pp. 899, 900. 



Linneean system of binomial nomenclature the 

 generic name plays two quite distinct rSles. One 

 of these is to designate a taxonomic group, sup- 

 posed to be intermediate between the family and 

 the species. The other is to form the first half of 

 the "scientific" name of each species within that 

 groiip. It is for this reason that the changing of 

 a generic name is so much more disconcerting than 

 is changing that of the family or order. And this 

 is why, in the writer's opinion [he describes him- 

 self in a preceding paragraph as "one who is not 

 a taxonomist at all"], such splitting as we have 

 just recognized to be Inevitable should be done 

 loitMn the limits of the genus, either by the crea- 

 tion of "subgenera," or, if necessary, by the es- 

 tablishment of wholly new categories between the 

 genus and the species.^ 



In other words, any method that will avert 

 the direful interposition of a new generic 

 name! 



The second contributor to the discussion 

 says: 



Few zoologists ever stop to think how far we are 

 getting away from a real binomial system of no- 

 menclature. It is true that scientific names of ani- 

 mals still consist of two words, but only in a mi- 

 nority 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 become 

 little more than a prefix to, or part of, the species 

 name. . . . 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 mono- 

 graphs and might be thought not up to date if we 

 did otherwise, but what the distinctions are be- 

 tween these multitudes of closely aUied genera wo 

 rarely stop to enquire.^ 



Notwithstanding this naive confession, the 

 author admits the utility of such minor divi- 

 sions if they are not permitted to affect nomen- 

 clature. 



They exist in nature and should have a recogni- 

 tion commensurate with their importance. . . . 

 Classification has gained in exactness and truthful 

 representation of the facts, but through our ne- 

 glect to keep the first term of our scientific names 

 comprehensive in its application, and easily distin- 

 guished and remembered in its meaning, we have 

 allowed our nomenclature to lose most of the prac- 



ilbid., p. 900. 



s Van Name, I. c, p. 187. 



