Ornithology, Evolution, and Philosophy 123

Zoological Nomenclature 333
of giving names to objects is to facilitate communication. Every time a name is
changed,alltheinformationthatpreviouslyhadbeengatheredunderthisname
will be lost or at least become very difficult to retrieve. Hence a change of name is
a violation of easy communication.
Stability of names can be achieved either through a strict priority approach
(that is the oldest name ever given to a taxon should be the only one valid) or by
means of conservation of well-known names (even if older, but overlooked ones,
senior synonyms, are found in the literature). During the early 20th century, the
defenders of the strict “Law” of Priority assured that there were undoubtedly only
a limited number of such forgotten names, that all such names would be found
soon and given their rightful position to achieve a stable nomenclature. Alas, the
period of name changing never ended. In particular the names of popular groups
of animals, like birds, mammals, butterflies and others, were used in literally
hundreds of publications each year and every change, when a “name digger” had
found a senior synonym of a taxon, caused chaos in the literature (see Mayr et al.
1953(a): 212–235 and Bock 1994b on the Principle of Priority).
Finally, zoologists of various countries protested in print against certain rules of
nomenclature, especially the “Law of Priority” and demanded relief. In March 1950,
K. P. Schmidt of the Field Museum in Chicago published a protest in Science asking
for the production of a sensible code of nomenclature at the forthcoming International
Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen (1953) emphasizing, in particular, “the
desirability of conserving familiar names and avoiding confusing changes,” even
if this impinged on the rights of authors whose names were not used. The needs of
all zoologists for maximum ease of communication were deemed more important.
Schmidt was immediately supported by many American zoologists including the
ichthyologist Carl L. Hubbs and Ernst Mayr who, at that time, explored the foundations
of nomenclature for his textbook, Methods and Principles of Systematic
Zoology (Mayr, Linsley and Usinger 1953a). He also wrote a specialized document
on “The status of ‘nomina nuda’ listed in synonymy” and sent it to the International
Commission in August 1950. It was published in German translation in 1951(h),
in English in 1953. When Mayr visited Europe during the summer of 1951, he discussed
the problems of nomenclature with Dr. Henning Lemche of the Zoological
Museum at Copenhagen in preparation of the 1953 Zoological Congress. On February
13, 1952, Mayr sent him a detailed memorandum on various points that ought
to be discussed at the Congress (copy in the Stresemann Papers, Nomenklatur 2,
Signatur IV, Bestand Zool. Museum, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin):
“1. It seems to me that the international rules should have a preamble in which it
is stated clearly that it is the function of the rules to safeguard a stable nomenclature.
This preamble should also state that it should be the function of the Commission to
use its plenary powers whenever the application of the rules seems to be in conflict
with this basic principle.” “2. There seems no reason whatsoever to change the
family name every time the name of the type genus is changed; 3. The present
Article 25 is rather chaotic. […] I would suggest that this article be divided into
two of which the first be entitled ‘The Rule of Availability’ and the second ‘The
Rule of Priority;’” 4. For no reason whatsoever the Zoological Congress in Paris