| OCR Text |
Show 1896.] RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 32l specific names were given to natural objects only in order that naturalists might know what they were talking and writing about. H e thought that uniformity was much more important than propriety, and the only way of solving a difficulty that was yearly increasing would be to appoint International Committees in various branches of science, which should be empowered to fix as a starting-point for specific nomenclature some very much more recent period than that of Linnaeus. Whenever a catalogue or standard work in any branch of Zoology could be found, such as Staudinger's ' Catalogue of Palaearctic Lepidoptera,' 1871, the nomenclature of which was based on a careful study, and a sufficient knowledge of the natural objects of which it treated, so that its nomenclature had been almost universally accepted and adopted, he would accept its specific names right or wrong, and look on any attempt to go back to earlier authors, many of w h o m knew little or nothing of the species they attempted to describe, as a great injury to science. It was very often impossible to know with certainty what these authors meant, and even when the types existed they were frequently, as in the case of many of Walker's so-called types of Lepidoptera, worse than useless. Such changes would not, of course, apply to generic names, which must be altered as our knowledge increased. H e saw no reason why names used in Botany should not also be used in Zoology, and agreed with Mr. Hartert, that no practical confusion resulted from this being done. With regard to trinomials, he saw no means of doing without them, but preferred them to be used with the prefix of var., ab., hybr., or gen., so as to indicate, more precisely than could be done without such a prefix, their relation to the species from which they spring. Such prefixes had been employed most properly in Staudinger's catalogue, and their proper use was well understood, though there was some danger of their undue multiplication without sufficient definition. H e thought that Dr. Sclater had done a great service to science in raising this discussion, which he hoped would not be allowed to drop without result. Dr. D. S H A R P , F.E.S., said the German Eules were not drawn up in a way to be practically useful. In the case of each one it should have been stated whether it was merely prospective or was intended to be also retrospective in application ; and if limited to the former, to what extent neglect of the rule was to disqualify a name. If these points were not agreed on, the adoption of these rules would add to the existing confusion. H e further pointed out that the application of the law of priority had in Entomology failed to produce the agreement that its advocates claimed it would promote. Some names had n ow been in use for generations with two different applications, naturalists being apparently divided into two schools. Mr. W . T. B L A N F O R D , F.E.S., said that nomenclature was simply a matter of convenience, and he thought it hardly worth the labour to draw up another code of rules, because they would be sure to be subject to different interpretations. H e objected to the use of PROC. ZOOL. Soc-1896, No. XXI. 21 |
