12 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVIII. No. 966 



technieal names. As authors increase in number 

 and attempt to monograph various groups the lack 

 of uniformity in the use of names is brought home 

 to them, and no matter what policy they may try 

 to follow they usually find it necessary to change 

 some of the names more or less current in their 

 group. Under existing rules and under all stand- 

 ard codes since 1845, and in spirit at least since 

 the Linnean Code of 1751, the law of priority has 

 in general been taken as fundamental criterion 

 in deciding certain classes of the changes, and in 

 fact so many poiuts have been made upon basis 

 of this law that it has aroused opposition from 

 certain quarters. 



(65) In this connection it is interesting to note 

 that if an author changes from ArMBba to Ameba, 

 or from Amwha vulgaris to A. princeps, or if he 

 makes a change of name and gives as his reason 

 the fact that the rejected name does not please 

 him, or even if he divides an old collective genus 

 into 40 or 50 new genera, introducing 39 or 49 

 new names and retains the old collective generic 

 name for the indefinite residuum, his action is not 

 very likely to produce any particular indignation, 

 but if any author consistently applies the law of 

 priority, thus attempting to settle all cases ob- 

 jectively he becomes what one author is pleased to 

 call a ' ' fanatic priority ruler. ' ' 



(66) As authors are increasing in number and 

 as publications become so numerous, both the ap- 

 plication of the law of priority and the protests 

 against the law increase. 



(67) The commission is distinctly gratified if 

 its efforts have contributed in even a small degree 

 to the present increased interest in the subject. 

 It may, however, be permitted to invite attention 

 to three phases of the present status of the sub- 

 ject which are somewhat disquieting. 



(68) 1. Intemperate Langwige. — ^Whether or not 

 it be an actual fact, appearances to that effect 

 exist that if one author changes or corrects the 

 names used by another writer, the latter seems in- 

 clined to take the change as a personal offense. 

 The explanation of this fact (or appearance, as 

 the case may be) is not entirely clear. If one per- 

 son corrects the grammar of another, this action 

 seems to be interpreted as a criticism upon the 

 good breeding or education of the latter person. 

 Nomenclature has been called "the grammar of 

 science," and possibly there is some inborn feel- 

 ing that changes in nomenclature involve a reflec- 

 tion upon one's education, culture and breeding. 

 Too frequently there follows a discussion in which 

 one or the other author so far departs from the 



paths of diplomatic discussion, that he seems to 

 give more or less foundation to the view that there 

 is something in his culture subject to criticism. 

 It is with distinct regret that the commisson 

 notices the tendency to sarcasm and intemperate 

 language so noticeable in discussions which should 

 be not only of the most friendly nature, especially 

 since a thorough mutual understanding is so val- 

 uable to an agreement, but which are complicated 

 and rendered more difficult of results by every 

 little departure from those methods adopted by 

 professional gentlemen. 



(69) In the opinion of the commission the tend- 

 ency to enter into public polemics over matters 

 which educated and refined professional gentlemen 

 might so easily settle in friendly and diplomatic 

 correspondence is distinctly unfavorable to a set- 

 tlement of the nomenclatorial cases for which a 

 solution is sought. It may be assumed that the 

 vast majority of zoologists agree with the commis- 

 sion in desiring results rather than polemics, and 

 the commission ventures to suggest that results 

 may be obtained more easily by the utmost con- 

 sideration for the usual rules of courtesy when 

 discussing the views of others. 



(70) 2. Education in Nomenclature.— It may 

 safely be asserted that comparatively few zoolo- 

 gists upon beginning their independent profes- 

 sional career have even a general idea of the sub- 

 ject of nomenclature, for the reason that zoolog- 

 ical grammar (namely, zoological nomenclature) 

 is not usually taught in courses leading to the 

 bachelor's, the master's or the doctor's degree. 

 Without wishing to emphasize the point unduly, 

 the commission ventures to suggest that it would 

 be in the interest of harmony if at least the ele- 

 mentary rudiments of the subject were taught 

 more generally to ' students preparing themselves 

 for a career as professional zoologists. 



(71) 3. The Immensity of the Task before T7s. 

 — Despite the quite generally increased interest 

 shown in the subject of nomenclature, there are 

 some grounds for disquiet in the fact that rela- 

 tively so few workers seem to grasp the immensity 

 of the task involved in introducing harmony of 

 system among so many different groups and in 

 bringing about satisfactory conditions among so 

 many hundreds of thousands of technical names 

 scattered over so many different publications writ- 

 ten or edited in so many instances by workers who, 

 despite their erudition in respect to their subject, 

 were so to speak not exactly grammatical — or at 

 least rhetorical — when it came to their technical 

 names. 



