36 Meetings of Section 1. 



that Moehriiig-'s names could not be adopted in our nomen- 

 clature. He had fully discussed the question in the 

 " Zoologische Anzeiger " for 1904. 



He thought that it would be more desirable not to allow 

 the option of spelling dedication-names with small or large 

 initials, because if such option was allowed, uniformity 

 would be out of the cpuestion. 



He was glad to hear that Prof. Blasius agreed that 

 trinomial nomenclature must be generally employed, but he 

 did not agree that the first-named form ought to bear 

 two names instead of three. " Corvus corax " should be 

 a general name for the species, including " Corvus corax 

 corax" of North-Europe, Corvus corax hisjxinus of Spain, 

 Corvus corax sarclas of Sardinia, and others, while Corvus 

 corax corax could leave no doubt that it was only and strictly 

 meant for the first-named North-European Raven. It was 

 not scientific to speak of " the European Raven, 1 ' because 

 in Europe at least four distinct forms of Raven were found. 



Mr. Kleinschmidt's jn'oposal to introduce a new nomen- 

 clature, that of his " Formenkreise/' was indeed most 

 unnecessary, and he had fully discussed this in the " Journal 

 für Ornithologie.' ' 



Dr. Hartert thought it much more practical if, in a 

 systematic work, not only the species, but also the sub- 

 species, were separately numbered under similar headings, 

 because, for a scientific student, the subspecies were often 

 at least as interesting as the species. 



The demand that the differences between subspecies should 

 be so well-marked, that one could name and determine the 

 form, was a very pleasing one, but rules could not be made for 

 nature, and the facts must be taken as they are, and not as 

 one would like them to be ! If a subspecies is ill-defined in 

 nature, a very clear diagnosis for it cannot be given, and it 

 would be unscientific if, on that account, the fact that certain 

 differences existed were simply neglected. The object of 

 scientific work was not so much to bring clear and plausible 

 statements before the jmblic, as to find out the truth — even 

 if it were very inconvenient. 



Prof. Blasius said that it was dangerous to surmise that 

 more subspecies of a certain species might exist, because this 



