July 4, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



15 



(94) The Law of Priority. — Tlie law of priority 

 has been affirmed by a number of zoological codes, 

 and has been formally affirmed twice (1892 and 

 1901) by the International Congress of Zoology. 

 The original code of 1889 and 1892 permitted cer- 

 tain exceptions to this law. Contrary to the very 

 earnest appeals of the president and the secretary 

 of the commission, the section on nomenclature in 

 the Berlin congress adopted the view that these 

 exceptions should be eliminated and in said sec- 

 tion the view obtained that the law of priority 

 should be rigidly enforced without any exceptions 

 of any kind in any group. When the matter came 

 to argument in the commission, the president and 

 the secretary after a long discussion and "ndth 

 many misgivings, finally, for the sake of harmony 

 accepted the will of the majority, but this was not 

 until after they had received positive assurance 

 from prominent members of the congress that the 

 commission would be supported in its attempt to 

 carry out the amended law, for which, in the 

 minds of the president ajid the secretary, the zoo- 

 logical profession was not then prepared. Clearly 

 foreseeing at that date the tremendous dissatis- 

 faction that the amended law would cause, in a 

 profession not all of whose members are accus- 

 tomed to dealing with a large number of names, 

 the president and the secretary of this commission 

 immediately, in part even before adjournment of 

 the Berlin congress in 1901, made preparations to 

 meet the discontent which to their minds was in- 

 evitable as a result of the action taken at the 

 Berlin congress. This discontent has now cul- 

 minated in the presentation to the commission of 

 several propositions which have for their purpose 

 the authorization of exceptions to the law of 

 priority. Prom the fact that the several proposi- 

 tions submitted to the commission before this 

 congress convened, and no less than four substitute 

 propositions submitted formally or suggested in- 

 formally during the present work, are very dif- 

 ferent in character, the commission is persuaded 

 that the adherents of the policy of making excep- 

 tions to the law are far from being in accord as 

 to the method that should be adopted. From the 

 fact that memorials, protests, resolutions, letters, 

 etc., both for and against the plan of exceptions 

 have reached the commission evidence is clear that 

 the conclusions of the International Congress of 

 Zoology held in Berlin, Germany, are stiU subject 

 to a considerable difference of opinion. The com- 

 mission does not see its way clear to accept the 

 postal card votes that have been taken as repre- 

 senting a sound basis upon which its decision must 



be made, but incidentally it may be mentioned as 

 a matter of more or less general interest that more 

 persons have protested to the commission against 

 changing the rules by admitting exceptions than 

 have asked that exceptions be made. The inter- 

 pretation the commission places upon the two votes 

 is that there is a tremendously increased interest on 

 both sides of the subject and that there are many 

 zoologists who feel the same inconveniences that 

 the commission has felt ever since its organization 

 and the same inconveniences that all zoologists 

 have felt who have tried to consistently apply the 

 law. 



(95) Admitting without any reservation the 

 point that the commission itself feels very keenly 

 the inconveniences of the law, even claiming in 

 fact that the original commission of 1895 was in 

 favor of certain exceptions as evidenced by its 

 report, the present personnel of the commission, 

 whatever may be its views as to the wisdom of the 

 action taken in Berlin, stands in overwhelming 

 majority against admitting to the code any pro- 

 vision looking to exceptions to this long-established 

 rule. 



(96) The administrative office of the Deutsche 

 Zoologisehe Gesellschaft, through a statement pub- 

 lished {Zool. Anz; March 11,1913) as official by its 

 secretary gives its view to the effect that decision 

 on this matter should be reached during the present 

 congress and that this decision can not be post- 

 poned for three years; furthermore, a number of 

 members of the congress have expressed the view 

 to the effect that this subject must now be settled 

 definitely, finally and once for all, so that they 

 may proceed in their work undisturbed by vacilla- 

 tions in the rules. 



(97) So far as the question concerns the commis- 

 sion, the matter may be viewed as settled; and if 

 this matter, at least in its present form, come be- 

 fore any future congress it will be because of the 

 changes in the commission's personnel that occur 

 by death, resignation and expiration of terms of 

 service, or because it is forced upon the commis- 

 sion by circumstances. 



(98) In this report it has been unreservedly 

 stated that the law of priority is a harsh law and 

 produces inconveniences. It has also been stated 

 that the president and the secretary of the com- 

 mission, when defeated in the Berlin congress in 

 attempt to make this law somewhat milder, imme- 

 diately laid plans with a view of possibly meeting 

 the situation in some other way. The general plan 

 discussed by them after their defeat in Berlin in 

 1901 has been constantly held in reserve to be 



