No. 636] SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSIOX 



91 



In Ball's "Discussion of the Subject of Nomenclature" of 

 1877 which was based on a circular responded to by 45 American 

 naturalists in addition to previous codes and. other publicatio'ns 

 on the subject, the point under consideration receives the foilow- 

 ing attention in Section 65, Para^aph 10, 



derivation .t-iven by its anthor, with a prior valid name in the same 

 kingdom it must be rejcctod.* 



In other words, if names are not identical they stand. 

 Tlie Eutomolopical Code (1912, Parafrraph 82) has this to 

 say on the subject : 



an? equivalont in oslal)lishod Latin usac'o. 



In extr;u'ts from a code of Nomenclature in Tchthyolofry (Jor- 

 dan. Evormann and (Jilbert) published in the Condor in 1905, 

 Canon XVIT (Sc^eond para^rraph) , is quoted as follows: 



As a name is a word witli.Mit noco?sary nioanin?, and as the names 

 are identified by llieir ortlio.srraidiy. a ,£renerie name {tvpojrraphioal 

 errors corrected) is distinct from all others not spelled in exactly the 



tion or rejection of names deemed preoccupied.^ (Note.)^ ^ This canon 



but of different -endJrs or termination to remain tenable. 



The International Code which, so far as it proes, is adhered to 

 by a majority of zoologrists, alludes to this subject in a i-ecom- 

 mendation under article 36. The language follows: 



introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this account. 



4 Nomenclature in Zoology and Botany, Salem, Mass., December, 1877, 



