14 



SCIENCE 



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



agree upon all points, and after many conferences, 

 it finally suggested to the congress the proposition 

 that those portions of the rules upon which the 

 commission was unanimous should be accepted, 

 and that all other portions be referred back to 

 the commission. This motion, suggested in the 

 general session, prevailed. 



(83) After its experience at Cambridge and 

 Berlin the commission was indeed not inclined 

 again to repeat its action of preparing for the 

 congress (as it did at Cambridge) any proposition 

 unless all of its members present at the congress 

 were unanimously agreed upon it. In order to 

 make this point certain the commission adopted at 

 the Berne congress the principle of reiporting 

 recommendations in regard to changes in the rules, 

 only when the vote upon them was unanimously in 

 the affirmative. Since the Berne congress this 

 plan has, in the interest of conservatism, been 

 strictly adhered to. From the Berlin congress in 

 1901 until the present congress, no section on 

 nomenclature has been provided by the program 

 committee and the commission has endeavored to 

 meet this situation by holding an open meeting of 

 the commission which all persons interested in 

 nomenclature were invited to attend. 



(84) The history of the commission has clearly 

 demonstrated that the congress has thus far de- 

 sired not to have its general meetings turned into 

 open discussions on questions of nomenclature, but 

 rather to have nomenclatorial discussions confined 

 to sections and commissions and nomenclatorial 

 questions decided in committee. 



(85) If at present there is a change of desire 

 on the part of the congress and if the congress 

 wishes these very technical and complex matters 

 discussed in the general sessions, the commission 

 would rejoice at the more general interest in nom- 

 enclature as evidenced by such a desire, but at the 

 same time it is constrained to state that nomen- 

 clature is a subject that requires quiet delibera- 

 tion rather than formal debate, and, further, that 

 to throw open the general meetings of this con- 

 gress as a forum for this exceedingly dry and com- 

 plicated subject will be not only to jeopardize the 

 success of future congresses, but, since this plan 

 ia not in accord with the plan under which many 

 zoologists elected to follow the international rules, 

 a grave question arises as to following such a 

 policy. 



(86) Amendments to the "Bugles Internation- 

 ales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. ' ' — There have 

 been fifteen series of amendments submitted to the 

 commission which has been in session since Friday, 



March 22, studying the various suggestions, giving 

 hearings, etc. For instance, a special hearing was 

 given both to Professor Brauer and to Dr. Poche 

 for presentation of any arguments or points of 

 view they might desire to submit in connection 

 with the proposed amendments in which they were 

 especially interested. 



(87) A somewhat embarrassing situation pre- 

 sented itself because of the unusually early date 

 of the congress, but a valid parliamentary method 

 was suggested under which it became possible to 

 consider all of the propositions submitted. 



(88) Departing from the usual custom, the sec- 

 retary had published in the Zoologisclier Anzeiger, 

 November 26, 1912, and March 11, 1913, all propo- 

 sitions that had reached him and in addition sev- 

 eral propositions that were known to him by fact 

 of their publication. 



(89) Under the by-laws adopted by the com- 

 mission, and published for general information in 

 the last report, the commission proceeds as fol- 

 lows: Under Art. IV., Section l(ffl) the commis- 

 sion reports to the congress "Recommendations 

 involving any alteration of the 'E6gles Interna- 

 tionales de la Nomenclature Zoologique,' but no 

 such recommendation is to be reported unless it 

 has first received a majority (8) vote of the com- 

 mission and the unanimous vote of all commis- 

 sioners present at the meeting." 



(90) In accordance with this by-law, the com- 

 mission herewith reports upon the following 

 amendments with the recommendations that they 

 be inserted in their proper place in the Efegles. 



(91) (a) Suggested amendment No. 9, submit- 

 ted by the First International Entomological Con- 

 gress, has been modified slightly by the commis- 

 sion, and is reported in the following form as a 

 Beeommendation : "It is recommended that in 

 published descriptions of new species or new sub- 

 species, only one specimen be designated and 

 labeled as type, the other specimens examined by 

 the author at the same time being paratypes." 



(92) (6) Suggested amendment No. 13, submit- 

 ted by J. A. Allen and T. D. A. Cockerell. — ^After 

 considerable discussion, the commission voted that 

 the first portion of the proposed amendment (con- 

 cerning Gavia, Fregata and Ficcoides) and the 

 first portion of the second paragraph (concerning 

 Plautus) are already covered by the Efegles as 

 interpreted by opinion 46. 



(93) The idea also obtains for at least a portion 

 of suggested amendment No. 1, that the points in 

 question are provided for in the code, and a for- 

 mal opinion to this effect is now contemplated. 



