186 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. VIII. No. 189. 



olic institutiou near Niagara Falls, have beeu de- 

 stroyed by fire, supposed to have been of in- 

 cendiary origin, involving a loss of $70,000. 



Heek von Miqtjel, Prussian Minister of Fi- 

 nance, has proposed a plan for taxing profes- 

 sors of medicine who also practice. His plan 

 would result in paying no salary to professors 

 who have a practice of the value of $5,000. 



De. Steven Ceowe and Dr. E. S. Pillsbury 

 have been elected lecturers in bacteriology in 

 the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Sau 

 Francisco. 



The University of Pennsylvania has this year 

 awarded five senior fellowships, two honorary 

 fellowships, fifteen regular fellowships for men 

 and five for women and the Hector Tyndale 

 Fellowship. The awards in science are as fol- 

 lows : Senior Fellowship : Chemistry, W. L. 

 Hardin. Honorary Fellowships : Botany, A. 

 F. Schweley and S. C. Schmucker. Fellow- 

 ships : Pedagogy, C. D. Nason ; Chemistry, 

 Alfred Tingle ; Biology, J. M. Greeuman ; 

 Mathematics and Astronomy, J. M. Hadley ; 

 Sociology, G. R. Wicker ; Mathematics, J. B. 

 Faught. Felloivships for Women : Psychology, 

 A. J. McKeag; Chemistry, L. G. Kollock. 

 On the Hector Tyndale Foundation : Physics, 

 M. G. Lloyd. 



De. Geoeg Klebs, of Basle, has been ap- 

 pointed professor of botany in the University at 

 Halle. Dr. Hefs has been promoted to a full pro- 

 fessorship of physics in the Lyceum at Bamberg. 

 Dr. Holde has qualified as docent in chemistry 

 in the Technical Institute at Charlottenberg, 

 and Dr. Kopsch in anatomy in the University 

 of Berlin. 



DISCUSSION AND COEBESPONDENCE. 



STABILITY IN GENEEIC NOMENCLATUEE. 



In the June number of the Botanical Gazette 

 Dr. B. L. Eobinson has called attention to the 

 fact that the Rochester Rules do not provide 

 critei'ia for determining the application of ge- 

 neric names. It is also pointed out that a strict 

 interpretation of the principle of priority would 

 demand that the first species placed under a 

 genus should serve as its nomenclatorial ' type,' 

 to which the name should remain attached. 

 The execution which such a rule would work 



among the older names is, it appears, the reason 

 why the makers of the Rochester Code have 

 hesitated to enact or put it in practice. This 

 omission is criticised as gravely inconsistent in 

 a system of ' absolute and decisive character. ' 

 Much nomenclatorial discussion has failed of 

 any definite purpose for lack of agreement as 

 to the nature of the taxonomic problem. Con- 

 sciously or unconsciously, systematists belong to 

 two schools, representing, for the purposes of 

 illustration, the idealists and realists. Accord- 

 ing to the former, systems of classification and 

 their categories are mental concepts merely — 

 pigeon-holes, so to speak, into which the indi- 

 vidual units of biologic phenomena can be as- 

 sorted. If the arrangement of the pigeon-holes 

 prove too inconvenient, changes may be neces- 

 sary, but these are made with reluctance, and it 

 is fondly hoped that each readjustment may be 

 the last. The idealistic systematist views nature 

 from the standpoint of the system, and while 

 he may not be a philosophic idealist as well, 

 and deny the material existence of the objects 

 of his study, he not infrequently declares, and 

 uniformly acts on the opinion, that species, 

 genera and families do not exist in nature, but 

 are made by the naturalist. In accordance with 

 this view, the various categories mentioned con- 

 sist primarily of definitions to which names are 

 attached. The usage of the earlier systema- 

 tists corresponded somewhat to our present cus- 

 tom of patenting new inventions. If the defi- 

 nition or specification proved faulty it was set 

 aside, name and all, and a supposedly improved 

 combination of characters was arranged for the 

 consideration of posterity. This was entirely 

 just and logical, for if the genus (definition) did 

 not correspond to anything in nature it was of 

 no use to the naturalist and should properly 

 give way to the clearer concept of the later 

 student with his presumably wider knowledge 

 of forms. No uniformity nor stability could 

 come, however, from such a method ; biologic 

 progress would mean an endless succession of 

 names, an infinite mass of competing generic 

 concepts to be sifted and arranged, constituting 

 an almost insurmountable barrier between 

 nature and formal knowledge. To avoid this 

 threatened chaos it became customary to retain 

 older names, emend the descriptions and credit 



