6 
It is safe to say that the known genera and species of animals 
represent but a fraction (not over 10 to 20 per cent) of the zoological 
names which will come into use during the next two or three cen- 
turies, for there are extensive areas of the world which are not yet 
explored zoologically; and when we consider that even in Europe, 
where work on systematic zoology has been in progress for a century 
and a half, hundreds of new genera and species are still becoming 
known, and when we consider further that we are only beginning to 
know the parasitic protozoa, it is clear that our nomenclatural tasks 
are easy, compared with the tremendous number of technical names 
that future generations will fall heir to. 
Under these circumstances it is seen that in order to prevent our 
science from becoming “a mere chaos of words,” every zoological 
author owes a serious nomenclatural dut} T not only to himself and his 
colleagues of to-da} T , but also to future generations of zoologists. 
Linnpeus (1751) seems to have appreciated the necessities of his own 
time, and to no little extent the possibilities of the future, for he pro- 
posed a set of rules in accordance with which botanical and zoological 
names should be used. 
If it were left to each author to accept or reject names according to 
his own personal wishes in the matter, the science of zoology would 
soon reach a stage in which it would be difficult for one author to 
understand the writings of another, hence, in order to prevent such a 
chaotic state, systematists have felt themselves forced to adopt certain 
rigid rules in accordance with which any given animal shall have onl} r 
one valid name, and that name shall be valid not onl} T in the countiy 
in which it is proposed but in all other lands as well. 
The purpose of the International Code of Nomenclature is, there- 
fore, to remove zoological nomenclature from subjective influences 
and by placing it on an objective basis to make it international; by 
this plan, a zoologist in South Africa chooses his technical names in 
accordance with the same rules as does the zoologist in Europe, Asia, 
Australia, or America. 
The code in question deals with nomenclature (namely, with the 
names of systematic units, such as genera and species), but not with 
terminology (namely, the names of organs, functions, conditions, etc.). 
Origin of the International Code. — Reference has already been 
made to the important fact that Linnaeus (1751), the father of modern 
biological nomenclature, proposed a system of rules of nomenclature. 
Since it is difficult for one generation to legislate for succeeding 
generations, it is not strange that later authors discovered that the 
Linntean rules, fundamentally good though they were, were not suf- 
ficient to meet all the requirements of the advances in the biological 
sciences, and since the publication (1751) of the Linnsean code various 
efforts have been made to improve upon the rules he laid down. 
* 
