JANUARY 6, 191 11

most important being: (1) That the hospitalshall admit to the wards students of the med-ical schools to the extent and in the mianinerpermitted by the most approved practise. (2)That the educational institution concernedmay make nominations to all positions on thehospital staff, medical, surgical and special.THE completion of the fund of $750,000 for

the Johns Hopkins University is announced.This insuies the payment to the fund of afurther $250,000 offered conditionally ini Feb-ruary of last year by the General EduieationBoard.By the will of MIrs. Martin Kellogg, Yale

University receives a bequest of $30,000 fromthe estate of the late MIartin Kellogg, who wasformerly president of the University of Cali-fornia.MR. H. J. PRIESTLEY, M.A., assistant lec-

turer in mathematics at the University ofManchester, has been appointed professor ofmathematics and physics in the newly-consti-tuted Uiniversity of Queensland.

DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCESYMBOLS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMIENCLATURE

PROFESSOR NEEDHAM'S proposal 1 of a planfor practical nomenclature deserves more at-tention than has yet been given it publicly.To be sure, our energetic friend ProfessorCockerell has published a brief destructivecritique' based on personal opinion as towhat can be most easily retained by the mem-ory, and on sentiment. As to the former, onemight differ from him in individual cases, ormight justly observe that memory is not theonly factor involved in Professor Needham'sproposal. So far as sentiment goes the in-congruity and falsity of many names willmake as good an argument on the other sideof the question, while the eolorless numberadapts itself far better to changing interpre-tations with the progress of science than anyword with its fixed relation to ideas. Norcan I believe that it is any part of scientific

'SCIENCE, September 2, 1910, pp. 295-300.2SCIENCE, September 30, 1910, p. 428.

nomenclature to "call up pleasanter [philo-logical] thoughts." It certainly is worthwhile to have the great names of the pastbrought to our attention, but such men are inour thoughts constantly not because they havenanmed a few species more or less, but becausethey have made real contributions to the prog-ress of science. And what shall one say ofthe constant burdensome recurrence in sys-tematic work of the names of the unknown,of those who have torn down the good workof their associates and have left the roadwayof science rocky with synonyms, errors indetermination and description, false state-ments and careless records, misspellings andmisquotations. It is these rocks in the waythat make the pilgrim to-day toil wearily upthe height more conscious of the obstaclessuch men have left than of the substantialroadway the real workers have constructed.But to my mind all of this fails to reach

the heart of the problem or in any way toaffect the fundamental contentions urged byProfessor Needham. For this reason I amanxious to aid if possible in directing atten-tion to the real questions at issue and theprobable lines for their successful solution.The history of all science shows intercur-

rent tendencies towards simplification andcomplication. The data already establishedare reduced to greater simplicity in expressionand the new relations that are demonstratedinvolve them at the same time in constantlyincreasing complexity. That simplificationin terminology is a real tendency is apparentto every one who studies the history of zool-ogy and compares the long and involved cir-cumlocutions of early writers with the moreprecise designations of to-day. Hand in handwith this simplification in form goes a move-ment towards standardization in use andmeaning which finds its expression in modernterminology. The terrn becomes more preciseas it becomes more limited and because itsuse is limited.The history of zoology does not in this

respect differ from the past of other sciencesand yet the comparison shows that some othersciences have progressed further along this

SCIENCE 25

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[N. S. VOL. XXXIII. No. 836

line of development than zoology has yet gone.Such a simplification by the employment ofsymbols has become thoroughly incorporatedinto the substance of some sciences and isproposed for introduction into others. Arnexamination of these conditions shows someinteresting and in my opinion valuable con-siderations for this discussion.Probably because numbers were the basis of

mathematics the origin of the science is oftensaid to date from the invention of numbers.But even with that it may be noted that thesymbols were not in all cases identical and inone system Roman letters were employed,whereas another used Arabic numerals forthe same general purpose. Nor can one welldoubt the superiority of the Arabic notationover the Roman even if sentimental groundslead one to prefer the classical to the Moorishcivilization in laws, government or other so-cial conditions. Probably mathematics rep-resents the most highly developed of all sci-ences and the modern mathematician is notdeterred from the use of symbols by any dan-ger of misprinting, confusion, error of mem-ory or other similar objection, real thougheach of them is in this case also.The case of chemistry is even more en-

lightening because the introduction and uni-versal use of symbols is of comparativelyrecent date. One does not have to seek far tofind arguments against the use of symbols forthe designation of chemical elements whichread strikingly like the objections of ProfessorCockerell to the plan which Professor Need-ham advocates. Errors do occulr in chemicalliterature, proofreading is far more difficultbecause of the numerous easily confused sym-bols in use to-day and the abandonment ofthose quaint old names which disclose someof the secrets of the alchemist and of themystic age of chemistry, was a real senti-mental loss. Yet I doubt if any one couldnow be found who would seriously contendthat we should return to the presymbolic dayseven if it were possible to express modernchemical work in ancient form. Simplifica-tion through the use of symbols has come tostay in chemistry as in mathematics.

It is no argument whatever against thegeneral proposal to introduce some such sys-tem into biological sciences to say that thelatter are less precise, that their units aremore numerous and more complicated thanthose of mathematics or chemistry. If theproblem had been as simple it would havebeen solved as easily as were the others. Thedelay in reaching any solution indicates theexistence of difficulties but does not afford anybasis for rejecting efforts to solve the problemor for characterizing the problem as insolublealong this line. The greater complications ofbiology make its development slower becausethey demand for their consideration and an-alysis a more highly organized general scien-tific foundation and a more highly trainedbody of scientific workers. The solution maynot come in our time, but it will surely comesome day.But other sciences also are looking for pos-

sibilities of simplifying and of standardizingtheir forms of expression in the manner sosuccessfully adopted by chemistry. One ex-ample of most recent date may suffice to showthe tendency. This is taken from what maybe regarded as the most recent addition to thecircle of sciences, geography. In an addressbefore the Geographical Section of the BritishAssociation at Sheffield this year, the brilliantyoung Oxford geographer, A. J. Herbertson,'dwells upon this matter, saying in introduc-tion, " I have long thought that we shall bedriven to some notation analogous to that ofthe chemists." After suggesting a possiblescheme for consideration he adds: "This isthe roughest suggestion, but it shows how wecould. . . . No doubt there would be manydiscussions. . . . But after all these discus-sions would be more profitable than quarrelsas to which descriptive term, or place nameor local usage should be adopted to distin-guish it."With only minor changes in phraseology

this description of dangers and profitless dis-cussions which geography should avoid por-trays actual conditions in the zoological field.

,SCIENCE, November 25, 1910, p. 745.

26 SCIENCE

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

JANUARY 6, 191 1]

Zoological nomenclature has received heroictreatment during the past ten or fifteen years.The difficulties which had arisen in the nat-ural course of development under the Lin-naan system had led to numerous isolatedefforts for their correction until finally anattempt has been made to remedy the evilsunder the control of a central organizationwhich has been so firmly established by zoolo-gists as to be at present beyond their controland swayed by laws alone. Yet even such anautocratic and omnipotent body has Inot suc-ceeded in doing more than increasing thedifficulties of the situation. It really seemsas if the problem requires more radical meas-ures for its solution. The present plan oforganization is incapable of coping with thecomplications which have arisen in the rapidexpansion of biological knowledge during thelast half century. Personally, I am convincedthat the Linnaean system offers no probabilityof meeting the situation. Of this there maybe some question, but there is abundant evi-dence to show that the existing zoologicalnomenclature is meeting with wide-spreadcriticism and does not command the supportto be expected of so fundamental a system.Indirect but weighty evidence of this may befound in the fact that the use of commonnames is increasing and that a larger propor-tion of biological workers than ever before areavowedly indifferent to the use of technicallycorrect scientific names.Present conditions are denominated unsat-

isfactory by able men in many places and indiverse special lines of work in the generalfield. The most important general criticismsof the existing conditions may be statedbriefly as follows:

1. Lack of Stability.-Present nomencla-ture by law depends upon the accuracy of thepast and upon the completeness of our knowl-edge concerning its work. At any time dem-onstration of an error in statement or of anomission in the references to previous workmay overturn a name or series of names andthrow all the literature on the group intoconfusion. New laws and new rulings aremade with the same result, for in our effort

to out-Herod Herod we go further than thelaw, that most conservative of professions, hasever gone. We make and enforce ex postfacto laws which upset the established prac-tise of a century.

2. Overemphasis upon Trivial Features.-Page-long discussions recur constantly on theacceptance of A's nanme or B's name and bothsides argue with apparent justice and at in-terminable length. Articles follow hard oneach other's heels dealing exclusively with thespelling of names: Shall it be somum orsoma? Shall one write nni or nii? And thequestions are never decided, for even the highpriests of the movement differ in their viewsand their practises, and the great majority ofbiological workers pay little attention to thestrife because they feel the issues are trivial.Now the real meat of the question is thething and not its name. And all this energydevoted to a study of the animal itself wouldyield much of value to science. The work-man does not care whether A or B gives himhis tools; he wants a tool and wants it sharp,because he wants to do work with it. He isrightly impatient of so much hair splitting toso little puirpose, but he does look forward tothe time when in some way this energy maybe diverted into productive channels.

3. Exaltation of Error.-If a tyro commitsan error, if a neophyte goes astray or makes afoolish move, we are accustomed in scienceotherwise to consign his work to kindly ob-livion, but in nomenclature this may not be.The skeleton of his misbirth must be hung inthe public hall of the systematic museum,to dangle its misshapen bones before bothstudents and visitors for all time. There isno other option possible to-day under the lawsof nomenclature. A mistake once incorpo-rated in the literature of biology must foreverremain there, even though apparent to theman of education at a glance. The most con-servative theologian would hesitate to supportsuch an inflexible denmand for the mainte-nance of the past, errors and all. And thevery fact that able and zealous advocates ofpresent nomenclature contend there is noother way under the present system compels

SCIENCE 27

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

[N. S. VOL. XXXIII. No. 836

the conclusion that this system is insufficientfor the needs of a science which seeks toeliminate error and to establish truth.

4. Multiplication of Complications.-Noone can doubt that the complexity of zoolog-ical nomenclature has increased enormouslywithin very recent years. Furthermore, noone will deny that much of this increase isdue to the expansion in our knowledge of thebiological world and its interrelations. Thisnatural growth in complexity is as welcomeas it is inevitable, but if real progress is to beachieved it must be accompanied by a perfec-tion and simplification of the machinery ofcontrol and of investigation in which a prom-inent element is the systematic nomenclatureof the subject. Now there is reason to believethat the system in use has become unneces-sarily intricate, that its parts are involved bythe nature of the case in ways such as tocreate grave difficulties for the ordinaryworker. These difficulties are certainlygreater to-day than they were twenty yearsago and this result has been produced by thechanges and complications incident to thenew legislation in the subject during veryrecent years. Such changes may have beenwise and necessary from the legal standpoint,they may be perfectly in line with the nat-ural development of the present system. Butthat only strengthens my contention thatzoology must look for a better system, mustseek a way of escape along an entirely newline. I am aware also that these changesmeet the approval of those who have devotedmuch time to the study of taxonomy and thatthey do not regard the complications ashindrances to progress. No doubt from theirpoint of view this is true, but there is anotheraspect of the question which deserves carefulexamination.To the skilled systematist, thoroughly ac-

quainted with his own groups, confident, ac-curate, critical, these difficulties constituteintellectual stimuli rather than stumblingblocks. He follows the changes in names withdelight in the history of the science that theyportray. Outside his own corner of the fieldhe often does not care to go, or if he wanders

it is not so far afield that he is at a loss to findthe necessary help to keep him in the path.But to the general worker this constant shift-ing constitutes a real burden that retards hisprogress and reduces the efficiency of his work.This is, however, not the most serious featureof the case.To the general public even in the educated

world scientific names will perhaps remainas they unfortunately now are regarded, "be-yond the powers of ordinary mortals," andbirds and beasts, insects and shells, will con-tinue to be called by their popular names be-cause the latter are not only simpler, but alsodo not change from day to day. But to theneophyte who hesitates on the threshold of thescience, uncertain whether he shall enter orwho later pauses before he essays to mount tohigher levels in the fields of our elysium, thedifficulties which our present nomenclaturesets in his path are at best disheartening.He would read of the great work of the pastand know its relation with that of the present.But you must tell him that Amphioxus is notsuch but Branchiostoma, that Holothuria isnot an echinoderm, that even Amoeba to-dayis Chaos !-and a multitude more changeswhich confuse his mind and dull his enthusi-asm. IHe wants to study life, not letters. Butat the very start of his work he is forced toviolate that canon of accuracy which is thefoundation of science or to assume a burdenthat wastes his energy in a vain effort to keepup with the latest revisions of nomenclature.Like Sindbad the Sailor, he struggles alongwith this Old Mlan of the Sea on his backuntil he decides to be quit of his burden, andwithout openly indicating his purpose, con-trives to wander off with the morphologistsor biologists, leaving nomenclature behind.Now these multifarious complications are

the necessary and logical consequences of thesystem of laws which zoologists themselveshave adopted and as such are unavoidable inthe opinion of the expert legalist. The nat-ural reply to such a dictum is then let usfollow the promptings of our scientific con-sciences and devise some better system. Whyshould we not find a simpler and effective

28 SCIENCE

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

JANUARY 6, 1911]

method of designation in a system of symbolssuch as other sciences have found? I am notin sympathy with those who look for relief ina laxer more open administration of the pres-ent system. Such a line of action does notseem to me likely to prove either effective orlegitimate.

This rigor in systematic nomenclature is anatural reaction from the free and easymethods which have prevailed in the past.Biological science even to-day publishes loose,inaccurate statements in research contribu-tions which would be laughed out of court inphysics or chemistry, to say nothing ofmathematics or astronomy. It is necessarythat some reform be undertaken, that ourbranch of science approach more closely tothe precision in observation and experiment,in record and discussion that characterizesolder sciences. The natural lack of fixity inbiological phenomena has been utilized to ex-cuse a lack of precision in method and in-vestigation which must be corrected. Oneeffort to reach a more justifiable basis is seenin the recent development of statistical work.and in the publication of definite numericalresults rather than merely generalizations inconnection with experimental work, in theeffort to control more accurately and statemore precisely the conditions of such experi-mentation and to analyze more closely the re-sults obtained. In such lines zoology hasachieved wonderful progress in the lasttwenty years or even less.The same influences will lead to a reforin

of our system and, following the lead of othersciences, such a refornm is likely to be accom-panied by the simplification which is associ-ated with the utilization of symbols. The far-seeing biologist should be oni the watch for aplan which promises some measure of successin this line, he should welcome all reasonableattempts at the solution of the problem. Ofcourse he will not reject any and all systemsbecause they are new departures; and yet heshould not fail to subject each to careful con-sideration because it may seem to be inade-quate or only partially worked out. Out ofsuch carefuLl discussion will come the longed-

for result in a workable form. But the sys-tem itself will represent contributions frommany sources.

I confess that Professor Needham's planseems to me at most only a partial solutionof the problem. Even as such it may prove tobe of great value and it is to be hoped thatbiological workers may be willing to try it onvarious groups in diverse portions of the fieldand may then report on their results. Betterstill if it could be subjected to a trial by somerecognized society or institution with a viewto testing thoroughly its character. lt wouldbe valuable to compare it carefully with themuch more complex system proposed someyears ago by Tornier4 which seems to haveattracted no attention, although it was a mostingenious and original means of formulatinga symbolism for zoological nomenclature.While this system was much more complexand covered not only species as proposed byProfessor Needham's plan, but also genera, andinidicated the precise place in class, order andfamily occupied by each genus and species,yet apparently the symbol used for a givenform would not be permanent and independentof changing views regarding the position andrelationship of genera and higher groups.This lack of stability would be a serious, ifnot fatal, objection to the introduction of anew system planned to correct precisely thesame defect in the old.

HENRY B. WTARDZOOLOGICAL LABORATORY,UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

BOTANICAL EVIDENCE OF COASTAL SUBSIDENCE

IN a recent article' Professor D. W. John-son calls attention to certain conditions atScituate, Mass., which are there responsiblefor a fictitious appearaclee of coastal subsi-dence. During the "Portland Storm" of1898 the bar was broken which at that localityalhuost separates the North River marshes andbay from the ocean, with the result that thehigh tide level on the mnarshes is now fromone to several feet higher than it was then.

4Zool. Anz. Vol. 21, p. 575, October 24, 1898.'SCIENCE, N. S., XXXII., 1910, P. 721.

SCIENCE 29

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

SYMBOLS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMIENCLATUREHENRY B. WARD

DOI: 10.1126/science.33.836.25 (836), 25-29.33Science 

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/33/836/25

REFERENCES

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/33/836/25#BIBLThis article cites 1 articles, 0 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

registered trademark of AAAS. is aScienceAdvancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title

(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for theScience

Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.Copyright © 1911 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the

on Decem

ber 11, 2020

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from