| OCR Text |
Show 1896.] RULES O E ZOOLOGICAL N O M E N C L A T U R E . 319 zusammengestellt von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesell-schaft. Leipzig, 1894. 11. Eegles de la Nomenclature des Etres organises adoptees par les Congres Internationaux de Zoologie (Paris, 1889 ; Moscou, 1892). Paris, 1895. A communication was read from Graf Hans von Berlepsch, C.M.Z.S., expressing his regret at not being able to be present on this occasion, and giving his opinion on the three points specially discussed. He was not disinclined to give way on the first, but maintained the necessity of the second and third alterations proposed in the German Eules. T H E P R E S I D E N T (Sir William Flower) said that the question of nomenclature was a most important one in the study of Natural History. The existing confusion was caused, not only by the absence of definite and universally accepted rules, but also by divergences in the mode of interpretation of such rules as were accepted-divergences which he feared would always exist, however theoretically perfect the rules may be made. He allowed that the tautonymic principle, unfortunate as it was in many respects, was the logical outcome of the system of priority, the basis of the Stricklandian and all other Codes. The evil arose from the use of specific names in a generic sense, a practice which never ought to have been permitted. With the various Codes now before us it was sometimes difficult to discriminate between regulations for the introduction of new names, and those applying to the treatment of names already in use-two objects which must be kept apart. In the former case we could not be too strict, but in the latter Sir William Flower contended that there should be some latitude allowed in favour of universal usage, and he objected to the supersession of a name known to the whole scientific world by one which had been buried and forgotten almost as soon as it was called into existence. For instance, he did not like the revival of Anser fabalis for the well-known A. segetum, nor of the genus Procavia for Hyrax. With regard to the 10th or 12th edition of the ' Systema Naturae' for a starting-point, he had always preferred the British Association ruling in favour of the latter, but it was evident that the former was gaining ground, and would probably be eventually adopted. In conclusion, although he said he was glad that M r . Sclater had introduced the subject, as a discussion like this must help to clear up our ideas upon it, he was not very hopeful of an absolute agreement ever being arrived at. Mr. H A R T E R T said that the Code of the German Zoological Society was almost the same as that of the German Ornithological Society. With regard to names used in Botany and Zoology, he considered that from a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to create a name if the same rules applied to both, because it would necessitate a search through botanical as well as zoological literature before a name could be settled upon. H e therefore thought Botany should be ignored, for mistakes as to whether a name was |
