JULY 2, 1897.] 
pose uniformity of nomenclature by the ar- 
bitrary authority of an individual or a com- 
mittee who should go to such a length as 
to say either that words have no meaning or 
that we shall use words in wrong senses 
must fail, for the simple reason that com- 
mon sense will not be coerced, and sensible 
writers will go on writing as sensibly as 
they know how.* 
Rule 25 provides for expunging from 
nomenclature any name which is ‘ offensive 
(whether politically, morally, or by its 
irreverence).’ This raises a question of 
great and probably insuperable difficulty ; 
for we may at once ask, offensive to whom ? 
In a certain sense, science is non-political, 
non-moral (a different thing from being im- 
moral, of course), and non-reverent of any- 
thing but ascertained or ascertainable truth. 
Tn religion it is agnostic ; in printed decen- 
cies it is usually found to side with decent 
people ; in political lampooning it might 
display partisanship as a part of human 
nature, without great offence to propriety. 
It would seem to be a case which ordinary 
self-respect and regard for public opinion 
would suffice to regulate; yet we can hardly 
arbitrate it in its nomenclatural aspects. 
Sivathervum might be as offensive to a Hin- 
du devotee of the cult whose god is invoked 
in the name of a fossil beast as any other 
blasphemy. Neither Phallusia nor Ithyphal- 
lus offends more than the translations of 
these terms would in a medical treatise, nor 
does Chitoria keep a manual of botany out 
*Dr. B. G. Wilderstates, Journ. Comp. Neurology, 
vi., Dec., 1896, pub. Feb., 1897, p. 334: ‘‘Nosuchat- 
tempt is known to me.’’ Then he never knew the A. 
O. U. Code and Check List, which are an attempt to se- 
cure uniformity of nomenclature by the authority of a 
committee, ‘quorum pars magna fui.’? But his criti- 
cism is excellent: ‘‘The very notion savors of ecclesi- 
asticism rather than of science. At the most, indi- 
viduals have set certain fashions, more or less com- 
mendable and permanent, while committees have 
made recommendations which even their own mem- 
bers may disregard when their information is increased 
or their views are modified.’’ 
SCIENCE. 
15 
of schools. While the drift and purport of 
Rule 25 are obvious and admirable, its en- 
forcement to the extent of expunging any 
names but those quite outside the pale of 
public decency is probably impracticable. 
The way to deal with such things is to cut 
the perpetrator the first time he shows him- 
self in society. 
We have already protracted this review 
beyond usual limits, and must hasten to 
cloture. Several following rules bear upon 
correction of names, orthographically or 
zoologically. In the former regard they 
will be nugatory with those who hold to our 
Canon XL.; in the latter respect they will 
command the assent of some naturalists, 
but not of all. Rule 42 will, we imagine, 
be found decidedly objectionable, as will 
most of its corollaries; though some of the 
refinements regarding types may be spe- 
cially serviceable in microlepidoptera, while 
less so or not soin zoology atlarge. In any 
event, Walsingham and Durrant have given 
us in this Code a notable contribution to the 
literature of the subject, which can be 
studied to advantage by every zoologist, 
perhaps by every botanist also. For our- 
selves, we are among a large number of 
naturalists who are fully convinced that the 
A. O. U. Code is, on the whole, by far the 
best one ever formulated. Our appreciation 
of its manifold good qualities and general 
utility leads us not unnaturally to set it up 
as a standard of excellence with which 
other codes are to be compared. That we 
are not blind to its defects is obvious from 
what has preceded ; but it is our very con- 
viction of its strength and worth which 
makes us feel free to express ourselves per- 
haps more forcibly regarding its blemishes 
than we should if we considered it a weak 
or tender thing that needed nursing. At the 
same time it were idle to consider our Code 
a faultless finality ; no sensible man is go- 
ing to be bound by it against his own con- 
victions, and if naturalists are ever to be 
