3 The New York Years (1931–1953)

336 10 Systematics and Classification
explanations given in the Code itself. The second edition (1991a) of the Principles
does not contain the text of the Code and only an abbreviated commentary with
a detailed discussion of nomina oblita and nomina nuda (p. 392 ff). The authors
explain clearly the difference between a valid name and an available one as well as
many other nomenclatural issues.
Mayr has the great merit to have attained a regulation against the revival of
long-forgotten names (“name digging”), although his original wording of this
articlehasbeenadaptedandrevisedlater.Evenmoreimportantwashissuccessin
castigatingstrictadherencetopriority.Thereforethestepstobetakenarecarefully
considered today when a senior synonym is encountered. Mayr always believed
clear communication to be more important than the revival of forgotten names.
The Nomenclature Committee of the AMNH of which Mayr was a member
and at times the chairman published a series of comments and proposals in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature during the early 1950s regarding the stability
of nomenclature, the validity of certain taxonomic names, nomina conservanda,
the designation of neotypes, rules for naming families and suprageneric categories
of lower rank, the validation and emendation of certain names, substitute names,
the revision or clarification of certain articles of the Code, the specific name and
nominate subspecies. As an active member of the International Commission on
zoological nomenclature (until 1979), Mayr commented on the applicability of the
gender rules (1958j), on the equal and exchangeable status of patronymics with the
terminations –i and –ii (1958m), and on the composite nature of Linnaeus’ Helix
vivipara (1960b). In 1972, he proposed several amendments to the International
Code regarding the formation of family-group names, the law of homonymy, the
choice of a type genus and others (1972i). Over many years, he also published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, like other commissioners, brief and
more extensive nomenclatorial comments on the proposals submitted by other
zoologists.
In later years, Mayr published on individual provisions of the Code such as the
problem of secondary homonymy (1987b) raised already in his memorandum of
1952 (see above). Secondary or subjective junior homonyms result when a specialist
combines two or more genera containing species with the same specific name.
Other specialists may not agree with this action (and much less with any renaming
of the supposedly “homonymous” species). At the Congress in London (1958) Mayr
had protested strenuously against Article 59b of the Code addressing this problem
and in 1987 suggested to expand Article 79c by applying it not only to unused
senior synonyms but also to unused senior homonyms. In some cases of obvious
homonymy Mayr supplied new names for certain taxa of birds (e.g., Pachycephala
lorentzi Mayr 1931 and Dicaeum hypoleucum pontifex Mayr 1946). Mayr (1983c,
1989h) further discussed the philosophical question whether the type method of
zoological nomenclature for attaching labels (names) to definite objects would be
suitable in philosophy, i.e., to attach names to ideologies, to research traditions,
and evolving scientific concepts. His conclusion was that the type method is rather
unsuitable for this purpose. Instead of coining a new term every time the meaning
of an evolving concept changes (e.g., the concept of “Darwinism”), the definition