JULY 2, 1897.] 
According to Rule 21, which is an am- 
plification of Rule 20, a name may be 
only ‘so similar to a valid one as to be 
almost homophonous’ to be rejected, which, of 
course, but emphasizes the objections al- 
ready made to Rule 20. 
It follows that Rule 22 is also objection- 
able (1) in that it provides that ‘‘a name 
wrongly written is invalid if, on legitimate 
correction, it becomes (either) homonymous 
or homophonous with a valid name;” and 
(2) in that it implies the right of emenda- 
tion of names. 
Yet Rule 23 permits, in the case of genera, 
the use of names which differ merely in ‘a 
different sexual suffix,’ as in cases like 
Sciaphilus and Sciaphila, in opposition to pre- 
vious codes and the consensus of probably 
nine-tenths of present zoological writers. 
The case of Picus and Pica is obviously not 
parallel, inasmuch as these names have 
come down to us from pre-Linnzan classi- 
eal writers, who employed them, not inter- 
changeably, but as names for entirely dis- 
tinct objects. The etymology of these words 
is admittedly unknown, but their use for 
centuries as distinct names, applied to 
totally unlike birds, seems sufficient reason 
for their use in modern systematic no- 
menclature, and for their adoption as dis- 
tinct words, despite the accident of their 
similarity.* 
Rule 24. ‘“ A name which involves a false 
proposition is invalid and may be changed.” 
Note first the use of ‘may’ instead of must, 
leaving the enforcement of the rule optional, 
and thus opening a way to instability of 
names through mere personal opinion or 
preference. Note, secondly, that it opens 
the way to wholesale changes on trivial 
*Since this was written this point has been touched 
upon in this journal (Screncz, N. S., Vol. V, No. 
126, May 28, 1897, p. 847) by Dr. Stejneger, who says 
Picusand Pica “ are distinct and separate Latin classi- 
eal names for widely different birds, though the 
philological root of the two words is probably the 
same.’’ 
SCIENCE. 
17 
grounds. If a species of a certain genus 
has been named minimus or major, and a 
species is subsequently found that is smaller 
or larger, the names in question ‘involve ai 
false proposition.’ And so in cases where 
names relate to color, as where a species is 
named nigra, or purpurea or rubra, and is 
not of the color implied; or in the case of 
species given geographical names that do 
not occur in the countries whose names 
they bear, or in other cases indicate por- 
tions of their range which are not charac- 
teristic of their distribution. Forinstance, a 
Mexican species may have been named bra- 
siliensis, or a Peruvian species cayennensis, 
which do not occur respectively in Brazil or 
Cayenne. This class of cases, as everyone 
knows, is legion. To avoid the adoption of 
a rule necessitating such sweeping subver- 
sion of names we can well afford to endure 
the isolated case of a name like cafer for a 
North American woodpecker! Indovici- 
anus, as applied to one of our tanagers, now 
‘involves a false proposition,’ since the spe- 
cies does not occur in Louisiana. There is, 
in fact, every shade of falseness in names, 
from a time-honored Paradisea apoda to such 
as involve a falsity so slight as to be of 
questionable importance in the mind of even 
the greatest stickler for nomenclatural ve- 
racity. 
Rule 27 is the corollary of the principle 
laid down in the ‘introduction’ regarding 
the ‘guarding’ of the ‘actual work and 
intention of an author,’ quoted, and so em- 
phatically commended in the foregoing re- 
view of the ‘Merton Rules.’ The Rule is: 
“Mhe right of an author to correct ante- 
cedent work is undoubted, provided always 
that in making such corrections the inten- 
tions of his predecessors be respected, unless 
proved to be erroneous.” This is an inno- 
vation fraught with the gravest possibilities 
for mischief. Heretofore it has been deemed 
to be the only safe course to take an author’s 
work as he left it, without attempting to 
