Règles internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique

Abstract

IT has frequently been remarked that it is not of much use making laws and regulations unless you have the power to enforce their observation; and this trite saying applies, in our opinion, very forcibly to this code of regulations for zoological literature, drawn up by an international committee the deliberations of which have extended over some years. The code, which is published in three languages, is admirably drawn up, and for the most part free from ambiguity; but the question is, will naturalists agree to abide by it? In our opinion, a large number will refuse to accept it, since a rigid and slavish adherence to the law of priority is enjoined, and to many this is anathema. The rule that when a genus-name is changed this entails the change of the family title will be generally regarded as satisfactory. As regards emendation in names, this is held to be justifiable only when an error in transcription, a lapsus calami, or a misprint is apparent; but in the interpretation of this difficulties may arise, as in the well-known case of Neurogymnurus, which is believed to be an error for Necrogymnurus. Differences of opinion, again, are likely to arise with regard to the rejection of names on account of unsuitableness or similarity to others already in use. The retention of such names as Polyodon and Apus when applied to animals which do not properly come under such designation will, no doubt, be generally accepted; but what is to be said when, for instance, an essentially African species is named asiaticus? Such names as Polyodus, Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontus, &c., are held not to come under the category of synonyms, although the converse rule is followed in many systematic works and catalogues, such as Dr. Trouessart's “Catalogus Mammalium.” Règles internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique. Pp. 63. (Paris: F. R. de Rudeval, 1905.)