July 4, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



9 



to the secretary and if their receipt is not ac- 

 knowledged within a reasonable time the con- 

 clusion may safely be drawn that they were never 

 received. 



(19) Official List of most Frequently Used Zoo- 

 logical Names. — The Gratz congress adopted a 

 recommendation by the commission to the effect 

 that an attempt be made to establish, on basis of 

 the International Rules of Nomenclature, an 

 "Official List of most Frequently Used Zoological 

 Names." In accordance with this vote, the sec- 

 retary invited a number of workers to form them- 

 selves into special committees and to cooperate in 

 the undertaking, and he submitted to several of 

 these committees lists of names for study. 



(20) The vigorous protests received from various 

 sources were not foreseen. Some zoologists pro- 

 tested against the proposed list on the ground 

 that this was the beginning of a list of "Nomina 

 conservanda" to which they would not submit; 

 others demanded that the secretary agree that the 

 list be made without reference to the law of pri- 

 ority; some practically challenged the right of the 

 commission to undertake the work; others flatly 

 refused to cooperate; some agreed to cooperate 

 and did so; others promised aid that has thus far 

 not been forthcoming. 



(21) In view of the great dissatisfaction with 

 the proposed list, the secretary finally decided that 

 the wisest plan would be to submit to the commis- 

 sion only a comparatively small number of names 

 as a sample of what was proposed and to post- 

 pone further action on the matter until the com- 

 mission might discuss the situation and lay its 

 views before the congress for further considera- 

 tion. 



(22) The commission submits herewith a sample 

 of what it had in mind in suggesting the official 

 list. This consists of an accepted list of 40 gen- 

 eric names which appear from our present knowl- 

 edge to be valid under the code and a rejected list 

 of names which appear to be unavailable under 

 the code. 



(23) The commission recommends that this be 

 taken as a beginning and that names be very grad- 

 ually and carefully selected to be added to the list. 

 It will, however, be impossible to build out this 

 nomenclator unless cooperation is had from sys- 

 tematists in the different groups. With proper 

 cooperation, however, the commission is persuaded 

 that 100 to 500 accepted names and as many or 

 more rejected names might be added to the list 

 every three years and that in this way not only 

 would we obtain a list of established names for 



the genera most frequently referred to but that 

 many useless names could be definitely eliminated 

 from literature. The commission does not desire, 

 however, to continue this very time-consuming 

 labor unless there is a very distinct desire on the 

 part of zoologists to have the work done and a 

 willingness to cooperate in the undertaking. 



(24) The names suggested as samples for adop- 

 tion are distributed as follows: Trematoda, 11; 

 Cestoda, 5; Nematoda, 7; Gordiacea, 2; Acantho- 

 cephala, 1; Arachnoidea, 8; Diptera, 6. Prac- 

 tically all of these come into consideration not 

 only in zoological, but also in medical and vet- 

 erinary literature. 



(25) Public notice has been given that these 

 names would be called up for vote at this (1913) 

 meeting of the commission and ample opportunity 

 has been afforded for the presentation of objec- 

 tions. No objection to any name in the list as 

 now submitted has been presented to the com- 

 mission. 



(26) In addition to the list of 40 names sub- 

 mitted for action at the present meeting, the 

 commission submits a list of 169 generic names of 

 birds, with their authorities, references, genotypes 

 and method of type fixation, based on the Inter- 

 national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and 

 unanimously agreed upon by a special committee 

 of professional ornithologists, upon which the fol- 

 lowing gentlemen served: J. A. Allen (New 

 York), E. Hartert (Tring), C. E. Hellmayr 

 (Munich), H. C. Oberholser (Washington), C. W. 

 Richmond, secretary (Washington), R. Ridgway 

 (Washington), L. Stejneger (Washington) and 

 W. Stone (Philadelphia). 



(27) It is the intention of the commission to 

 send this list of names to press in the very near 

 future and to give ample opportunity to the 

 zoological profession to offer objection to any of 

 the names in question. Shortly after January 1, 

 1914, the commission contemplates announcing the 

 fact whether or not objection has been raised and 

 will issue an opinion regarding the adoption of 

 the list. This opinion would then be laid before 

 the Tenth International Congress for confirmation. 



(28) A third list, consisting of 430 names "to 

 be rejected," is submitted by the commission. 

 These names also have been made public with in- 

 vitation to zoologists to present arguments show- 

 ing why any of said names should not be rejected. 

 This list is to be interpreted simply as follows: 

 Word has reached the commission in one form or 

 another that these names are absolute homonyms 

 and therefore (Art. 34) unavailable; under these 



