Commentary on the 1961 Code of Zoological Nomenclature

THE 1961 CODE is a remarkably efficient instrument of nomenclatural procedure compared with its predecessor; it is also a remarkably sound digest of the best ideas that arose and were weighed from almost every angle in connection with the 1948, 1953, and 1958 meetings of the International Congress of Zoology. It is not pretended that all taxonomists will be wholly pleased with more than a few of the Articles of this Code, or that any taxonomist will be satisfied with all of them, but the end result is still on the whole a remarkably useful achievement. Knowing that the Code cannot reflect all the 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 the impartial mill of Commission consideration, with full knowledge that the refined product must be small in volume and perhaps almost unrecognizable in form as compared with the raw material. Miscellaneous Definitions. The definitions given of family, subfamily, genus, subgenus, species, and subspecies 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 the second definition is valid at least on the basis of usage; certainly reference to, for example, generic or specific categories implies only that these categories are composed of units of generic or specific 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 the categories themselves, but it is surely always implicit that in reality these are merely the names applied to the units comprising the categories. Reference to "the genus" or "the species" is surely to the concept of the units known as genera or species, not to the category. It would also be very useful to include among the definitions a fixation for "species name" and "subspecies name" for the reason that the connotation of these terms is very different from "species," or "nominal species," or "specific name" and "subspecific name." The latter two are restricted to the second and third terms of a binomen and trinomen, respectively, whereas "species name" and "subspecies name" refer to the name of the species and subspecies, therefore the entire binomen or trinomen. Binomial Nomenclature. The latter discussion points up the impropriety of the term "binominal nomenclature" as the general term for the system of speciesgroup nomenclature, that is, Linnaean nomenclature. Trinominal nomenclature, commonly practiced as a part of modern taxonomy and certainly covered by the official Code for more than 50 years, is by etymological indication, not included in "binominal nomenclature," the term officially accepted in the 1961 Code for the system of nomenclature zoologists now use and have used for 200 years. The im