Jttly 4, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



13 



(72) That present conditions are to be settled 

 in a day or in a few years is not to be expected. 

 The transitional period between the lack of uni- 

 formity in the past and the hoped-for uniformity 

 of the future will last at least one entire genera- 

 tion, and to our generation falls the pleasure or 

 the misfortune (according to one's point of view) 

 of undertaking the extensive and distinctly altru- 

 istic duty of saving future generations of scien- 

 tific workers from the dangerous inheritance of 

 chaotic nomenclature that threatens them. 



(73) Stability in all zoological names during 

 our generation is not in the dreams of the mem- 

 bers of this commission, which at your request 

 undertook eighteen years ago a most trying, most 

 thankless and very extensive task, for which the 

 only reward in its successful accomplishment ex- 

 ists in the thought that our work is a sacrifice. 



(74) That many of our colleagues should differ 

 with us in point of view does not disquiet us, but 

 it is a matter of some misgiving to us that some 

 of our colleagues are (or at least seemingly are) 

 of the opinion that the difficulties at hand are to 

 be settled so easily and in a few years. 



(75) The transitional period will be mentioned 

 again in connection with the reference to the law 

 of priority. 



(76) Whatever the outcome of the present situ- 

 ation, the commission desires to express its grati- 

 fication of the fact that, judged from the various 

 postal card votes that have recently been taken, 

 many persons to-day are hearing of the rules of 

 Homenclature who probably rarely if ever heard of 

 them before and many others are taking an active 

 interest who formerly ignored the subject. At the 

 same time the feeling that has been exhibited in 

 some instances leads the commission to the view 

 that the present occasion is one that calls for cool 

 and calm deliberation rather than for attempts to 

 obtain majorities in postal card votes, for surely 

 the quiet deliberations of a few representatives 

 selected because of their long experience in the 

 intricacies of a very intricate subject are more 

 likely to reduce confusion than is the conclusion of 

 a large number of persons, voting upon a subject 

 perhaps by mail and assuredly with less careful 

 deliberation. 



(77) This latter point was clearly recognized in 

 the Cambridge (England) meeting when the com- 

 mission was not, because of a lack of unanimity 

 in its report, even accorded a place on the program 

 to present the rules, and again in the Berlin con- 

 gress when the commission was urged to keep the 

 subject of nomenclature out of the general meet- 



ings by reporting only upon propositions agreed 

 upon by unanimous vote in commission. 



(78) The Relations of the Commission to the 

 Congress. — Certain letters and certain published 

 criticisms seem to indicate more or less clearly 

 that there is considerable misunderstanding in re- 

 gard to the relationship of the commission to the 

 congress. In the hope of clearing up certain 

 points and thus in the hope of a better under- 

 standing, the commission ventures to give a brief 

 statement bearing on this subject. 



(79) In 1889 and 1892, at the Paris and the 

 Moscow congresses, a code of zoological nomen- 

 clature was discussed and adopted. 



(80) In 1895, at the Leiden congress, a desire 

 was expressed by one of the German delegates to 

 have all codes submitted to a comparative study 

 and to have the results presented to the next con- 

 gress. As a result, a commission of five members 

 was appointed to carry out this task. This com- 

 mission worked for three years and was prepared 

 to present its report to the Cambridge congress of 

 1898, but because of the fact that this report was 

 not unanimous on all points, the commission was 

 refused a place on the program for the presenta- 

 tion of its conclusions as to the rules. The com- 

 mission was, however, increased to 15 members in 

 the hope of reaching more satisfactory results in 

 its vote, and upon motion the general session voted 

 that all propositions that were to be reported upon 

 at any given congress were to be in the hands of 

 the commission at least one year prior to the meet- 

 ing of the congress. 



(81) After another period of three years' work, 

 during which the enlarged commission had to re- 

 study the entire report of the original commission, 

 the former met at Berlin in 1901. Before its 

 report was completed conferences were held with 

 quite a number of the more prominent mem- 

 bers of the congress. During these conferences 

 the commission was given very distinctly to imder- 

 stand that the congress would not receive any 

 report unless it was unanimous. As one prominent 

 German member of the congress stated in effect: 

 "It is the duty of the commission to become 

 unanimous in its vote; give us a definite set of 

 rules, good, bad or indifferent, but be unanimous 

 in your report, and after you give us the rules, 

 see that they are carried out." The words of this 

 prominent German savant were a fair reflection 

 of the feeling we found at the Berlin meeting, so 

 far as the secretary of the commission could 

 discover. 



(82) Unfortunately the Commission could not 



