1878. | Biological Nomenclature. S 
and doubtful, while in individual cases some queries received no 
response. The answers classified as doubtful, comprise those 
which by their tenor indicated that the purport of the particular 
query had not been clearly understood, and some in which the 
person replying avowed his inability to express a preference for 
any one of several modes of proceeding. 
The gratifying unanimity which is exhibited in the responses 
to certain of the more important and clearly defined questions at 
issue, indicates that a thorough study of the more complicated 
questions by the light of the general principles of nomenclature, 
would result in a practical agreement on the part of American 
naturalists in relation to nearly all the matters in debate. 
It is evident from the responses of naturalists, that their opin- 
ion is generally adverse to any attempt to limit, by arbitrary 
rules, the right of publication in the most convenient direction, 
and against any statute of limitations in regard to scientific names. 
This seems to be in accord with the principles of justice, equity 
and general usage in nomenclature, though at times inconvenient 
in its results. It may be confidently expected that the majority 
of authors, when their attention has been drawn to it will, for 
their own interest as well as that of science, avoid in future pub- 
lications, the methods (or want of method) which in the remote 
past sowed so many germs of present difficulty 
The circular with replies is preceded by the Bieda note by 
Capt. Dall: 
NOTE. 
The question with which the working naturalist is most fre- 
quently brought face to face—and in the decision of which so 
much trouble is experienced and such diverse opinions are elicited 
—are chiefly those which involve the'right of any one of several 
names to be considered as properly proposed and entitled to take 
precedence of others, provided its priority in time of application 
be established. 
The rule that names eee unexceptionable) which are - 
prior in date, are to be accepted in nomenclature to the exclusion 
of all others, is r a by all naturalists. 
The rules recommended by the Committee on Nomenclature 
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, have — 
been generally adopted; though in certain details they are re- 
garded by many naturalists as defective. Nevertheless they have 
largely contributed to ue uniformity which is so desirable in 
the matter of nomenclatyr 
It has been thought xe a similar recommendation on the part 
of the American Association might reach many who are not con- 
_Versant with the British rules and tend to produce in the works 
EF ese, 
RU Se te Poe Ce en SSE eT kr, os Si eee ee 
stg oe RE eg SES andes hoes heer T 
-ficial agreement, 
_ Of the rising generation of American naturalists a similarly bene- : 2 
