1881.] Editors’ Table. 883 
EDITORS’: TABLE. 
EDITORS: A. S. PACKARD, JR., AND E. D. COPE. 
The International Geological Congress and the Zodlogi- 
cal Society of France have recently adopted rules for the regula- 
tion of nomenclature in the systematic biological seiences. These 
resemble, in most respects, those previously adopted by the Brit- 
ish and American Associations for the Advancement of Science. 
After reading them, we wish to signify our approval of them, 
with one slight modification in each. 
The gist of the whole matter lies in the interpretation of the 
law of priority. “The above-mentioned rules all agree that priority 
rests on definition, both for generic and specific names, but the 
tules of the congress and of the zodlogical society add some con- 
ditions which we wish to note. The rules of the former body 
Say (p. 121): “ For specific names priority shall not be irrevocably 
acquired until the species shall have been not only described but 
figured.” Our objections to this doctrine have been fully set 
forth in an editorial in the July Narurauist. They are two. The 
first is, that anything which may be taken as a substitute for a 
characteristic and analytical description is objectionable. Intelli- 
gent and intelligible descriptions are more needed than figures, and 
they are entitled to especial recognition when they are produced. 
Second, illustration is not always within the reach of naturalists, 
especially out of Europe. We do not. wish, however, to be 
understood as detracting from the importance of iconography. 
The rules of the zodlogical society say: “ The name used for 
€ach genus and each species can be no other than that by which 
it was first designated, on condition: @. That it shall have been’ 
issued in a publication where it shall have been clearly and sufh- 
' Ciently defined; and 4, that the author employs the binominal 
nomenclature.’ Our criticism is here directed against the lan- 
Suage “clearly and sufficiently defined.” While insisting on 
description as a basis of nomenclature, we cannot be very exact- 
ing as to the quality of the description. “ Sufficiently” described, 
that is without defect or excess, is a perfection which few specific 
°r generic descriptions can present in that stage of a science in 
Which they first appear. This requirement is impracticable. 
“ Clearly ” defined these groups can and should be, although the © 
diagnosis may be imperfect, but who is to decide when the degree 
; of clearness is sufficient to satisfy this rule? This requirement = 
