Whither Zoological Nomenclature?

Abstract

ZOOLOGICAL nomenclature appears to be approaching a fork in the road. At first sight nomenclatural thinking might appear to be travelling two, perhaps three, different roads at once, but a sounder interpretation is probably that it is in the throes of contemplating a change in direction. In any event the phenomenon affects all zoologists and consequently deserves their careful consideration. The present discussion of these apparent lines of nomenclatural thought is not only preliminary but it is written by one who is interested in nomenclature only in so far as it provides a useful tool for zoological work. The 1901 edition of the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature was based on the principle that if one followed certain prescribed procedures one would arrive at (or if necessary create) the valid scientific name of an animal, and that if everybody would follow the same path he would arrive at the same name. The utility of this concept is directly correlated with the simplicity of the procedures. If these become so complicated that only a nomenclatural technician can determine the valid name, then the amateur, i.e., the zoologist, will go astray. Under such circumstances the recognition value of the valid name would be greatly reduced and the amount of time necessarily transferred from zoological to nomenclatural work increased; in short the value of nomenclature as a zoological tool would be greatly impaired. There is, however, another and more dire possibility, namely that zoologists would simply ignore the Rules, using whatever names they saw fit. If this happened, zoology would revert to the dark nomenclatural ages before there were any Rules. (Unfortunately or fortunately, the International Commission has no enforcement agency other than zoological opinion. This point seems sometimes to have slipped from sight.) Two nomenclatural concepts that can or do lead off in rather different directions have now been superimposed on the procedural method dealt with above. The first of these has its origin in the Opinions. The earlier Opinions took up either applications of the Rules to moot cases or amplifications of the Rules to cover deficiencies. With time, however, the Opinions became increasingly diverted to ad hoc decisions concerning the validity of individual scientific names, e.g., nos. 67, 73, etc. From there it was but a short and logical step to the establishment of the present list of nomina conservanda. Suffice it to say for the moment that any name placed on this list becomes ipso facto the valid name regardless of the Rules. The second innovation is the recent concerted effort to insert into the Rules some law ensuring the conservation of well-known scientific names. The exact framing of such a concept does not seem to have been worked out, but the intent is to prevent the changing of well established names, again regardless of the Rules. These then are the two concepts that seem to point in a somewhat different direction from the old Rules, and it seems advisable to pause and consider where the various roads of nomenclatural thought lead. The Rules themselves have followed a path toward increasing complication. To point up the resulting difficulties, a personal example with obvious defects will here be risked. In teaching nomenclature in a course on systematic zoology over a number of years the author has found it best to start with the 1901 Rules. Stu-