OCR Text |
Show 1896.] RULES 0E ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 309 in May of that year (9). These Rules follow the American Rules very nearly, especially as regards the three points which are proposed for special discussion this evening. In 1892 the International Congress of Zoology at their Moscow Meeting adopted a set of Rules of Nomenclature, which appear to differ little in effect from those of the Societe Zoologique de Prance. These Rules (11) were separately published at Paris in 1895. W e now come to the Rules adopted by the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft in 1894 (10), which are of special importance for reasons that I have already pointed out, and to some of which, as being in direct conflict with those of the Stricklandian Code, I wish to call your special attention this evening. In order to render them more easy of access upon the present occasion I have translated and printed the text of the Rules themselves (see Appendix I., p. 316), though I have not thought it necessary to add to each rule the commentaries and explanations which are appended to them, in smaller type, in the original. O n reading them through it will be seen that these rules in many particulars conform to the excellent system originally put forward by Strickland and now generally adopted by zoologists all over the world. The usual sequence of divisions of animals into Orders, Eamilies, Subfamilies, Genera, and Species is recognized. The families are to be formed ending in -idee, and the subfamilies in -inae, and though priority is strictly enforced, corrections in orthography are not only permitted but approved of. In fact there seem to be only three principal points in which the Code of the German Zoological Society differs from ours, and it is to these three points to which I now propose to call your attention, after which I will say a few words on two or three points of minor importance. 1. The German Rules (Sect. 1) disclaim any relation to Botany" so that, according to them, the same generic names may be used in Zoology and Botany. This is contrary to the Stricklandian Code (Sect. 10). It is quite certain that the Stricklandian Code did not allow the same name to be employed for a genus in Zoology and in Botany. But in the British Association revision of 1863, amongst the six alterations proposed to be made in that Code was one "that Botany should not be introduced into the Stricklandian Rules and Recommendations." This, however, I do not take to mean that the Rule alluded to is to be repealed, but merely that the Rules as a whole were intended for Zoologists and not for Botanists. But in the American Code (see Principle IV.) the contrary view was taken and it was enacted that the " use of a name in Botany does not prevent its subsequent use in Zoology." W e will take a salient example on this point. The Swifts until recently have been universally called by ornithologists Cypselus, and the family to which they belong Cypselidce. Micropus of • Meyer and Wolf, which has one year's precedence over Cypselus, has been passed over, because Micropus is an old Einnean term for a genus of plants. In accordance with their Rules the American |