OCR Text |
Show 310 MR. P. L. SCLATER ON THE [Mar. 3, ornithologists have recently rejected the name Cypselus in favour of Micropus and renamed the family Micropodidae accordingly. While I quite agree that it is not necessary that zoologists and botanists should use exactly the same Code of Nomenclature, for in many respects their practices have long been different, I think it would be a great evil to allow Animals and Plants to be called by the same names, as in some cases it would not be prima facie apparent whether a particular term was intended to refer to an animal or a plant. Besides this, w e know that in some of the lower forms it is by no means easy to decide whether certain species should be referred to the animal or to the vegetable kingdom. Strickland was very decided upon this subject, and I see no reason at all w h y we should deviate from his practice, which up to a recent period has been generally followed by zoologists. 2. Under Sect. 5 of the German Rules the same term is to be used for the generic and specific name of a species, if these names have priority. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code (Sect. 13). In the original Stricklandian Code (Section 13) it is enacted that " a new specific name must be given to a species when its old name has been adopted for a genus which includes that species." In the British Association revision of the Code (Recommendation IV.) it was proposed to reverse this Rule, and to throw aside the generic in order to retain the specific name. It was the American Ornithologists' Code, I believe (Canon X X X . ) , which first formally proposed that specific names, when adopted as generic, should not be changed, and this Rule has now been adopted in both the German Codes. It should be remarked that the proposal of the B. A. revision to alter the generic name in these cases, instead of the specific, has hardly met with acceptance in any quarter. In Mr. Dall's report upon this subject (5) he well observes:- " This innovation, the sweeping character of which the Committee cannot have realized, if carried into effect, would uproot hundreds of the generic names best known to science, and so familiar that the fact that they were originally specific names has been almost totally forgotten. Its spirit is opposed to the fundamental principles of nomenclature, and the end to be gained is of the most trivial character." Although I was a Member of the Bath Committee that agreed to this Recommendation, I must confess that I am strongly opposed to it, and have always followed the opposite course enacted by the original Stricklandian Code, that in these cases the specific name is the one to be changed. Moreover, this last practice has, until recently, been generally adopted by English zoologists. Of late years, however, the "Scomber-scomber" principle, as it is familiarly called1, has met with many supporters. Though inelegant and almost ridiculous, it has, at least, one merit. It 1 " Scomber scomber" (Linn. S. N . ed. xii. p. 492) seems to be the only instance in which Linnaeus used the same generic and specific name for a species. But it is doubtful whether this was not really a printer's error, for in the tenth edition (p. 297) he wrote Scomber scombrus, and on referring to the two copies of the twelfth edition, formerly belonging to Linnaeus himself, and |