THE 1961 CODE is a remarkably efficient instrument of nomenclatural procedure compared with its predecessor; it is also a remarkably sound digest of best ideas that arose and were weighed from almost every angle in connection with 1948, 1953, and 1958 meetings of International Congress of Zoology. It is not pretended that all taxonomists will be wholly pleased with more than a few of Articles of this Code, or that any taxonomist will be satisfied with all of them, but end result is still on whole a remarkably useful achievement. Knowing that Code cannot reflect all idiosyncratic views of any one person, it is perhaps of questionable value for one person to make suggestions for its improvement; yet it seems so patently desirable for certain changes ultimately to be effected that at least some constructive ideas for improvement-those of presumably most general appeal-should be voiced in order to assure their consideration at an appropriate time. The following commentary, embracing only matters of possible general agreement although these include many of minor as well as a few of major importance, is thus presented simply as grist for impartial mill of Commission consideration, with full knowledge that refined product must be small in volume and perhaps almost unrecognizable in form as compared with raw material. Miscellaneous Definitions. The definitions given of family, subfamily, genus, subgenus, and are in part highly dubious. Each is defined as a category of a given level, and also as a taxon of that category. In reality only second definition is valid at least on basis of usage; certainly reference to, for example, generic or categories implies only that these categories are composed of units of generic or rank of genera or species. The hierarchy of units of classification-the Phylum, Class, Order, etc. as commonly explained does indeed list these units as though they were categories themselves, but it is surely always implicit that in reality these are merely names applied to units comprising categories. Reference to the genus or the is surely to concept of units known as genera or not to category. It would also be very useful to include among definitions a fixation for and subspecies for reason that connotation of these terms is very different from or nominal species, or specific and subspecific name. The latter two are restricted to second and third terms of a binomen and trinomen, respectively, whereas and subspecies refer to name of species and subspecies, therefore entire binomen or trinomen. Binomial Nomenclature. The latter discussion points up impropriety of term binominal as general term for system of speciesgroup that is, Linnaean nomenclature. Trinominal commonly practiced as a part of modern taxonomy and certainly covered by official Code for more than 50 years, is by etymological indication, not included in binominal nomenclature, term officially accepted in 1961 Code for system of nomenclature zoologists now use and have used for 200 years. The im-
Read full abstract