Zoological Nomenclature

Abstract

PROPOSAL of a 'stereotyped' zoological nomenclature almost invariably comes from a non-systematist or from a systematist working sporadically on a restricted group in a field where there is but a small literature and few workers. Any active worker in a large and progressive systematic field would realize at once that any 'stereotyping' plan is impossible. In my own subject, ichthyology, there is no general world monograph suitable for 'stereotyping' subsequent to Günther's "Catalogue" (1859–1870), and Günther's classification and nomenclature are now so out of date that no ichthyologist would accept it. There are a number of large faunai works of more recent date, but if they were 'stereotyped' for particular regions, their nomenclatural differences would force the wide utilization of different generic or specific names in different regions for identical genera or species. The vast number of forms thus affected would preclude any sensible arbitration of the conflicts. Not long ago one eminent anatomist proposed that the vagaries of elasmobranch nomenclature be settled by a return to the 1838 nomenclature of Müller and Henle's "Plagiostomen". But he did not suggest what was to be done with the numerous genera and species described since that time and with the various subsequent segregates of Müller and Henle's genera. As a matter of fact, return to this nomenclature of 1838 would necessitate the change of more valid names than were contained in the whole of Müller and Henle's work!