45 
hence a change of name to u Amoeba dysenterise ,” on basis of pathological 
findings, was not in accord with the code. 
Were we to admit “appropriateness" as a prerequisite to a name 
and were we to take a vote to determine which of the 110 names of the 
parasite of hydatid disease is the most appropriate, it would be difficult 
to reach an agreement. Under the code, however, the subjective 
element of “appropriateness" is entirely eliminated. 
Another point which some persons find difficulty in understanding 
is the fact that we do not concede to the author of a name any rights 
over that name which are not common to all zoologists. We recog- 
nize no name in nomenclature until it is published; when once pub- 
lished it is common property; if it has been published with lack of 
due consideration, its author is still responsible for its publication; 
after it is once published it becomes subject to the code, and were the 
code to give to the original author any rights over the name which 
other authors did not possess there would be little or no outlook for 
stability of that name until after its author's death; in the meantime 
the name may have come into general use, and if just before its 
author's death he decided to change it because a “more appropriate" 
name occurred to him or because of some other subjective reason, the 
nomenclature of the group in question might have to undergo a com- 
plete and unnecessary change. 
In understanding this and all other points of nomenclature it is 
essential to recall that the question of “ giving a man credit'* for his 
work is of very secondary consideration. The entire code, while not 
ignoring justice, is based primarily upon practical rather than upon 
sentimental considerations, and is intended to prevent an inconven- 
ience being caused to the entire scientific world rather than to protect 
an individual who works without a due regard of his responsibilities 
to future generations. 
Art. 33. A name is not to be rejected because of tautonymy, that is, 
because the specific or the specific and subspecific names are identical 
with the generic name. Examples: Trutta trutta , Apus apus apus. 
Discussion. — Some authors object to tautonymy, as Trutta trutta , 
Hetei'opliyes heterophyes , on the ground that they do not consider such 
combinations euphoneous. Nomenclature, however, is neither poetry 
nor music. It is a practical, not a sentimental, proposition. By appli- 
cation of the law of priority tautonymy is sometimes inevitable, and 
as the law of priority is the keystone of nomenclature, tautonymy is 
accepted. 
Personally I not only do not object to tautonymy, but I am strongly 
in favor of it. When we refer to Tdenia solium it is a question of 
memory or of looking up references which recalls to our mind that 
solium is the type of Tdenia. When we refer to Heterophyes hetero- 
phyes , however, the name itself shows us that we are dealing with the 
type of the genus. 
