— — T-

BV

DAVID SHARP.

" J\ omina si nescis, pevit et oognitio rerum.”

c

LONDON :

E. W. Janson, 28 Museum Street. | Williams & Nokgate, Henrietta St.

November, 1873.

D. Christie & Son, Printers, High Street, Perth.

Animals do not come into the world labelled with their scien-
tific names so that if a system of these is to be established it
must be by the efforts of Zoologists.

They have made the attempt, but there have recently been
indications that it may possibly end in failure.

The Author of this Pamphlet offers it to Naturalists with the
hope that it may contribute something to the establishment or
maintenance of a system of Zoological Nomenclature, that shall
be reasonable, and therefore likely to meet with general assent ;
that shall be capable of application without much difficulty in
the present transitional state of Zoology, and may possibly be
capable of adaptation to a final system of classification, — when
such shall be completed.

Thornhill, Dumfries, November, 1873.

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

I. —The Object.

TT is only the educated Naturalist who can understand
A how vast a subject is the study of Zoology as under-
stood in the present day.

It involves an account of the anatomy, internal and

external, of each species of the animal kingdom ; of the Extent
' 1 ... zoological

history of its life — including its embryology; of its distribu- search,
tion in time and space — the latter point including not only
the actual limits of its geographical distribution, but an
accurate account of the places of its occurrence within
those limits, and whether these depend on peculiarities in
the species itself, affecting its dissemination, or on external
conditions. It requires an accurate discrimination of the
characters which each species possesses peculiar to itself,
and by which it is distinguished from other species ; it
requires also a complete understanding as to the points and
peculiarities each species has in common with other species,
for by this means only can a natural classification be arrived
at. The demands of science are not even thus satisfied;
for it needs an account of the differences actually existing
between the individuals of each species, and it seeks to
know whether these vary with the lapse of time, or are
constant from generation to generation, and what are the
ultimate relations of these variations to external conditions;
for such questions as these are inevitably raised by the great
problem of the origin of species.

How enormous, then, is the amount of research required
to give us the knowledge needed as to even a single species.

of

re-

2

Zoological Nomenclature.

Necessity of When we reflect on this, and at the same time consider
liwte sti°dyaC1" how Sreat is the number of species Zoology has to deal with,
and that the progress of science continually suggests new
questions, to which answers are required, and that these
continually involve fresh or renewed observations, we see
how voluminous the records of Zoology must certainly be-
come, and how gigantic is the amount of information and
observation that must and will be stored up, and how im-
portant it is that some means shall be provided by whose
aid each enquirer may readily get at such portions as he
requires for his particular purpose of the store already
accumulated for the purposes of science. We are impressed
in short with the great necessity there is for some well ar-
ranged system of Nomenclature, which shall facilitate the
exchange of ideas among Zoologists, and shall enable facts
to be recorded in an accessible manner. We must, it is
clear to make possible our researches, give names to ani-
mals ; and our names must be associated with their objects
in an accurate manner, so that there shall be no mistake as
to what object a particular name refers to.

VT . , Now the animal world, as it exists at present, is composed

Naming of

individuals im- of an enormous number of individuals, and it is clear that
practicable. ^ wou}d hopeless for Zoologists to attempt to carry out
their researches by giving a distinct name to each individual
they deal with ; this course would it is true ensure accuracy,
but it would soon destroy the possibility of research, because
the individuals so named would soon die, and observations
have to be carried on with a fresh set of individuals, re-
quiring of course a fresh set of names, and the collating and
comparison of observations would be impossible because of
the enormous number of names, and the difficulty of the
identification of each of these.

The naming of individuals for the purposes of science
being then impossible, and not calculated to meet the re-
quirements of Zoology, what course can be substituted for
this ?

Therefore On looking around us we find that large numbers of in-

adopt naming dividuals resemble one another extremely closely, and that
of species. . . ' .

these individuals are intimately associated in various ways ;

Zoology perceives this fact, and gives one name to the

Zoological Nomenclature.

3

whole of the individuals possessing this general resemblance
to one another, but it only can do this with advantage when
experience shews that these groups of individuals, are really
separated by natural characters from other likewise circum-
scribed groups of individuals. Zoology takes advantage
then of these groups -which we find existing in nature dis-
tinctly differentiated from other groups, calls each such
group a species, and gives it a name. And a Zoologist is
considered to have sufficiently designated the individual he
refers to, when he has called it by the name of the species.

But there is more than this ; the observer finds, that though
the individuals forming these groups assuredly, and more or
less speedily, die and disappear, they in the course of their
existence have given origin to other individuals, and
observes moreover that these individuals resemble their
parents so that the generations succeeding one another can
be spoken of under the same species name. Having
ascertained these facts to be tolerably certain and definite,

Zoology is clearly in a position to found a system of
Nomenclature in accordance with them : and it is clear
that if we can make sure that every species shall have but
one name, during the whole period of its existence, and that
this name shall be different from the name of every other
species, we shall by means of this species name be able to
facilitate greatly the future progress of Zoology.

I think these considerations justify us in concluding that species-names

the basis of Zoological Nomenclature should be a univer- to he the basis

n , . , . . of z. N.

sally accepted, simple, and permanent system of species

names.

I earnestly invite the attention of Naturalists to this Necessity for
point. Let each one who takes an intelligent interest in ^ point" °n
the subject of Natural History Nomenclature, commence
his studies by gaining to himself a clear idea of what are the
objects both immediate and ultimate aimed at thereby. For
if there is not a clear idea, and a common understanding,
as to what is the primary aim of a system of Nomenclature,
it is hopeless to expect accord on matters of detail. And
I insist on this the more strongly, because that recent
writings on the subject seem to display a tendency to deal
with it rather after the method of the soldier than that of
the student or philosopher.

4

Zoological Nometiclature.

II. — The Linn/ean System.

First edition
of Systema
Natures.

Ninth editicn
of Systema
Natures.

Tenth edition
of Systema
Natures.

Ideas of Lin-
naeus as to
nomenclature.

Up to the time of Linnaeus (or Linne) no recognised
system of naming of animals was in general use, but in
1735 that justly celebrated man published a small work —
the first edition of his Systema Naturce. In this, and in
many of the subsequent works of Linnaeus, species were not
named at all ; but natural objects were classified into three
kingdoms, and the animal kingdom was split by successive
divisions into classes, orders, and genera, and each and
everyone of the groups so formed received a distinct name.

Successive editions of this work were published all
similar in their method. Thus we find that in 1756 the
ninth edition of the Systetna Naturce was published at
Leyden under the auspices of Gronovius (an intimate
associate of Linnaeus.) In his earlier works Linnaeus, as we
have said, did not give names to the species of animals, but
particularized each species by means of a generic name, and
a description of the species, and in this the ninth edition of bis
great work, the same system was adopted ; but as no new
species were described, the species forming each genus were
particularized by a reference to his former works ; this
reference being made by a word or two of description, or
name being given, accompanied by a reference to page and
work where full information would be found.

In 1 758 appeared the tenth edition of the Systema Naturce ,
it was styled by 1 .innaeus “editio decima reformata and it was
in fact a totally new work, and in it a proceeding of great im-
portance was systematically carried out. The ninth edition
(the largest of all the earlier ones) consisted of 225 pages,
while this, the tenth contained no less than 1384 pages,
and in it, each species of every genus received a separate
name. The naming of species as an essential part of
Zoological Nomenclature was here for the first time (by
Linnaeus) put into practical operation.

It will be instructive for us to consider and comprehend
the growth of this system and endeavour to obtain an idea
of its rationale.

In the Philosopkia Botanica , Linnaeus expounds his ideas
about Nomenclature, and we find them to be these : — That
botany (or Zoology as the case may be) has two objects in

Zoological Nomenclature.

5

view: the classification and naming of plants; and that a classi-
fication being made, names are then given : “ Fundamen-
tum Botanices duplex est ; Dispositio, et Denominatio . .

. . Dispositio est Denominationis fundamentum.”

(Phil. Bot. p. 97.) His practice as we have seen corres-
ponded well with his theory ; he made an analytical
classification, and then instituted a system of names adapted
to it. The classifications of Linnaeus are dead and buried.
They were eminently artificial ; they could not be other-
wise; they deal with the whole of natural objects, and yet
with only an insignificant fraction of those objects known
to the author, how could he hope to display the classifica-
tion of nature ? Ignorant of, and therefore undeterred by
the magnitude of the task, he undertook it — completed it
(as he supposed), and founded a system of Nomenclature
to suit it.

But we can learn more than this by our consideration of
his works. For it is manifest at once that the naming of
species formed no actual part of his system of nomenclature,
but was forced on him as an afterthought. To his ambitious
mind genera formed the units of Nature, species were but
fractions of genera, and in all his earlier works were so
treated. In the course of years, however, these fractions
became so numerous that Linnaeus discovered the necessity
of a system of names for them; and in his tenth edition of
the Systema Natures he, as we have seen, gave them names.-
But he did not by doing so raise them to the rank of units :
he still treated them as fractions. For, whereas he gave a
distinct name to each genus, he did not give a distinct name
to each species, but only to each species of a genus; his
trivial names were allowed to recur any number of times,
excepting always that any given trivial name could not
recur twice in combination with the same generic name.

With Linnaeus, then, genera formed the units of classifica-
tion, and were made the basis of his system of nomenclature.

Noting well this, let us go on a little further with our
history.

Linnaeus died, but his enormous energy had enlisted a.
number of able men in the study of Nature, and like true
seekers of truth they carried on the work of examining the

Generic names
with Linnaeus
the basis of X.
N.

6

Zoological Nomenclature.

classifications of their great master, and ascertaining how
far his divisions were correctly made. The result that fol-
lowed is instructive to us. Let us take one instance.

pliIadonmand In the twelfth edition of the Systema Natures Linnaeus

fission of gen- divided his order Coleoptera into 29 genera; these 29 genera
comprising 891 species. His pupil, Fabricius, undertook a
scrutiny of the Coleoptera, and in 1801 published at Kiel
his “ Systema Eleutheratorum” (be it noted in passing that
he changed the name Coleoptera for that of Eleutherata),
and he divided the order into 18 r genera, comprising about
5000 species !

Thus in 35 years the genera of Coleoptera had increased
sixfold, and this increase, we must observe, was not merely
the result of the discovery of new objects unknown to
Linnaeus, but was caused in large part by the subdivision of
the Linnaean genera into smaller ones, or by their entire
rearrangement. It was in fact a totally fresh classification
of Coleoptera, so far as their genera are concerned. The
process thus instituted by Fabricius has been continued by
others, and it will be sufficient for our purpose if we remark,
without following its details, that the 29 genera of Linnaeus,
multiplied by Fabricius to 181, have now become ro,ooo,
and in a few years will be 20,000.

How futile, then, was the hope of Linnaeus that he had
completed a classification, and was therefore in a position
to make a permanent nomenclature !

It is clear that he did not anticipate the enormous change
that would take place in his successors’ ideas as to genera,
otherwise he would not have based his system of nomen-
clature on the genus. And it is still more certain that he
did not foresee that the progress of science would require
that the speedy analytical system should be exchanged for,
or corrected by, the slower but more exact method of
synthetical classification.

Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the
Linnaean nomenclature has not been preserved in its in-
tegrity. Nevertheless, his method has .been preserved at
any rate to some extent, and the question arises, whether
we can make use of the Linnaean system of nomenclature
in the present state of scientific research, or whether it must
be abandoned for a new and more precise method.

Zoological Nomenclature.

7

III. — The Adaptation of the Linn.'EAn System to the
Future of Zoology.

The reader will perhaps by this time have begun to feel
alarmed, for he may very naturally suppose that I am about
to propose an altogether new system of Zoological nomen-
clature ; I am glad to be able to reassure him, and I hope to
regain his confidence, by saying that I think it would not
only be unwise to do this, but that it is unnecessary to
attempt it. If it be found, on enquiry, that the purposes of
science will be best answered at present by a system of per-
manent species names, apart and distinct from generic names,

I think it will also be found that the Linnaean method is
quite suited for giving this to us ; but at the same time it
will have to be admitted that our ideas as to what the
Linnaean method can accomplish, as also our mode of mak-
ing use of it, will each require some alteration so as to per-
mit of their readjustment. I have already stated my opinion
of the great advantage it would be to Zoology to have an
unchanging Nomenclature for species ; let us for a moment
consider the question whether we are at present in a position
to claim or obtain more than this.

I have already pointed out that Linnaeus sought to make species-names
his names a means or exponents of a system of classifi- not t0. be ex;
cation. Now is Zoology, we would ask, at present in such a classification,
condition that we can have our names fixed, and yet at the
same time classificatory ? (a horrible word, but useful for
my purpose). It appears to me that it most certainly is
not. Zoological classification is yet in its infancy, I think I
might even say it is still in embryo. We have smiled at
Linnseus for supposing he had settled classification, let us
have a quiet laugh at ourselves, for, do we not always take
for granted — is it not always £s it were an unconscious
postulate with us — that we have now got a classification,
which with (perhaps) slight alterations in its details is a
natural one ? I am sure we all think this, and yet I believe
experience will prove in the future as it has in the past, that
we have got nothing of the kind.

For example our classification is at present, mainly ana- Analytical
lytical. Now, what does an analytical classification involve ? classification.

I answer a continued reiteration of the operation known as

8

Zoological Nomenclature.

Synthetical

classification.

petitio prmcipii. We, to a great extent, take for granted the
distinction between animal and vegetable kingdom, and
then proceed to divide the animal kingdom into classes : if
it should prove that the division between the animal and
vegetable kingdoms is not where or what we supposed it,
then necessarily the limits of one or more of our classes are
erroneous and will have to be altered, and with the altera-
tion in the classes come alterations in the orders, and so on.
While our classes are thus obtained in this unsatisfactory
manner, so it is with our orders, and even with our more
subordinate groups. Are we not always discovering some
creature which sets our classification at defiance, and in-
volves a rearrangement of our groups ?

And even suppose we have obtained the classification in
a natural manner of existing species, does not the Geologist
come forward and present with us a new order of insects,
inevitably intermediate between two orders quite distinct at
present?

Suppose, again, we proceed in the more scientific course
of attempting a synthetical classification, that is to say, take
a species, ascertain thoroughly its characters, take another
species and ascertain its characters, and so on, and then
group together the species that have most points in common,
and form them into a genus, will not this process be a most
slow and tedious one, and will it not certainly follow that
observers having different points of view will obtain different
results? Thus the Zoologist who groups his species of
Coleoptera into genera, in accordance with the structure of
the parts of the mouth, will arrive at quite different decisions
to the observer who shall base his genera on structural
characters derived from other parts. And the groups so
formed may be as numerous and distinct as there are organs
in the body. How many years must elapse, — how many
generations of naturalists pass away — before these different
attempts can all be completed and collated so as t6 ascertain
what are really the classifications of Nature?

It is clear, then, when Linnaeus said that classification
and naming were the objects of the Naturalist, and that
classification being completed he should proceed to naming,
that he made a grave mistake; for in order to facilitate our

Zoological Nomenclature.

9

classifications, — in order to get the knowledge we require to
render its accomplishment possible — we must have names,
and the object of our endeavours must clearly be to name
first and classify afterwards.

I think, then, I am justified in concluding that we must in Th« separa-
r . , , , . tion of classifi-

the present state of science abandon the hope of accom- cation from

plishing the purposes of classification and the purposes of ^ature^de"

nomenclature by one set of names. Nomenclature and the sideratum for

purposes of observation .require fixed names — classification

requires shifting ones. Let us in so far as the names of

species are concerned, eliminate from our ideas all notion

(or nearly all) of any classificatory power in the name : and

so doing we can render them permanent, and so get a

system of Nomenclature which will answer the purposes we

started by requiring.

But here I shall be met by saying that our specific names Fallacies in
are permanent, or as permanent as they can be, and that term^speclfic
the whole efforts of Naturalists to secure a permanent system name."
of Nomenclature have been directed to the attempt to
render specific names permanent and unchangeable. Quite
so — they have been striving to seize and secure a shadow,
and naturally have obtained nothing. We want, I say, per-
manent names for species, and naturalists have been trying
to get this by rendering permanent the specific or trivial
name; but that is quite a different thing. I have pointed
out that under the Linnaean system of Nomenclature species
are only fractions of genera, and in order to name a species
we require to indicate not only the numerator but also the
denominator of the fraction. Linnaeus himself has said that
the name of a plant- consists of the generic and specific
names combined, and that the specific name without the
generic name is like a bell without a clapper — “ Nomen
omne plantarum constabit nomine generico et specifico”

(Phil. Bot. p. 158) and “'Nomen specificum sine generico
est quasi campana sine pistillo” (Phil. Bot. p. 226). I
think had he compared the name of a plant to that of a
fraction, and said that to name it by the specific name alone
is as impossible as to name a fraction by specifying the
numerator without the denominator, his illustration would
have been more forcible and accurate.

Analogy be-
tween names
and fractions.

i o Zoological Nomenclature.

Indeed, I believe it is the confusion as to specific name
that has rendered nugatory hitherto, the efforts of naturalists
to obtain permanent names for their species. In practice
the name of every species consists of the combination of
two words, a generic name, and a specific or trivial name :
while in their efforts for permanency of Nomenclature
Zoologists have directed their efforts to the preservation of
the trivial name alone, deluded by the false idea raised by
the term specific name. I can insist the more strongly on
this, as I myself was for long completely misled by the
term “ specific name,” and under its influence directed my
efforts for procuring permanency of names for species solely
to the trivial or specific name. Let us avoid for the future
entirely the use of the deceptive phrase specific name, and
clearly possess ourselves of the idea, that, as an actual fact
the name of a species consists of two words — a generic word,
and a trivial word.

It is no wonder to me that with these sources of error
unrecognized, our Nomenclature is rapidly becoming
“ chaotic.”

Let me try and illustrate the nature of this error by an
analogy. I have compared the names of species with the
arithmetical system of vulgar fractions. And the two really
have, so far as names are concerned, so much in common
that the analogy will not I believe (as analogies generally
do) mislead us. As in vulgar fractions it is the custom to
specify the particular fraction referred to, by two sets of
figures, a numerator and a denominator, so in our names of
species we indicate a species we wish to recall by two
words, a generic name, or word which corresponds to the
denominator, and a trivial name, or word corresponding to
the numerator of a vulgar fraction. Thus the name of a
common insect was with Linnaeus “ Scarabaeus vernalis.”
We may write it this same species was with Latreille

%SBr; with Jekel with Mulsant and yet it

is our practice to consider that by keeping the numerator
(I have turned the fraction upside down) unaltered, and
allowing the denominator to be varied at pleasure we have
kept the designation of the fraction intact. It is quite
clear we have done nothing of the kind, for if Mulsant had

Zoological Nomenclature.

T I

not expressly declared thatTOTi.rU = BtT^ST, = = ‘tSSSu*

the name itself would have given us no means of detecting
the fact. The “ vernalis ” has, on the Linnaean system, no
more definite value as the name of the species, than has the
numerator of a fraction without the denominator, and its
preservation by itself is of little or no value.

We have, in fact, entirely sacrificed the permanency of
specific names to the endeavour to render them classificatory.

Or to use the Linnaean illustration, we have transferred
our clapper from bell to bell, and are deluding ourselves
complacently with the belief, that because we have kept the
same clapper we are in possession of the same bell ! We are
trying to satisfy our necessity for permanent species names,
by a deceptive sentiment in place of a solid fact.

I propose, then, that Zoologists should recognise that the
name of a species consists of two words taken together, and
with a view to secure permanent names for species should
make it a practice to keep both words together unchanged.

I think there is yet another consideration that will shew
us the wisdom of such a proceeding. Had Linnaeus pur-
sued with his trivial names, the same plan as he did with his
other groups, — that of allowing no word to be twice used —
we should not have been involved in our present difficulty.
But he did not do this; and the system he actually pursued,
was one which was well suited to serve the purposes of an
incipient or infant Nomenclature, for it greatly facilitated the
recalling of an object by means of its name. J. W.
Dunning has aptly remarked “ in a mononymic system we
should require as many separate nouns (names) as there are
objects to be named ; if a separate name were framed for
each species, it would be impossible to recollect them all ;
the multiplicity of natural objects, and the weakness of
human memory required, therefore, some artifice to make
it possible to recollect or apply their names ” (Entomologist
Monthly Mag. viii. p. 274). This remark is very true, and
it was no doubt one powerful reason why the Linnaean
system of Nomenclature so rapidly gained the universal
adhesion of naturalists. Scientific men, like other men,
naturally choose the broad and easy way ; but when they
recognise that the easily travelled road is not geting them

The name of
a species con-
sists of the
generic and
trivial names
together.

Mononymic
sy st em of
names for
species.

Zoological Nomenclature.

Advantage to
classification
as well as to
nomenclature.

Fixed generic
names not yet
desirable.

I 2

to their journey’s end, they must just make a cut across
country and find the path, which, even if it be but painfully
travelled over, will get them to their object. Now the
growth of Zoology has long since destroyed the advantage
derived a hundred years ago from the binomial system of
Nomenclature. Linnteus, as we have seen, divided the
Coleoptera into only 29 genera, and while this was the case,
the use of the generic name as part of the name of the
species was undoubtedly a great assistance to the memory :
but the 29 genera. of Linnaeus are now replaced by the ten
thousand of Lacordaire, and the help to the memory is
consequently lost. Now, if my proposition be adopted we
shall be able to regain a large part of the lost advantage of
the binomial system, and yet secure the fixity and precision
of a mononymic system.

And by this course, viz., the recognising that the generic-
word part of the name of a species, is not to be varied or
changed, because our ideas as to genera change, we should
not only secure the great desideratum of permanent names
for species, but should, also, I believe, render an enormous
service to classification ; for, I think, that while permanency
of name has been lost because of the attempt to make names
represent the classification of the moment, so, also, classi-
fication itself has greatly suffered from the attempted com-
bination. I have already argued that classification is yet in
its infancy, and that the genera of our day will not be the
genera of to-morrow ; and, I believe, that naturalists cannot
recognise this too speedily. For how great are the sources
of fallacy arising from the false stability we have given to
generic names? Under the present system of carrying on
our nomenclature, we are constantly labouring under the
assumption that our present genera are final or nearly so-
Linnaeus did this, Fabricius did this, Latreille did this,
Lacordaire did this, and each and every one of us do this
every day. Let us rather have classifications from every
point of view, and we may then more readily discover
whether our genera are really the combinations of nature, or
only of books. Is it not a constant practice among
Zoologists to base conclusions as to faunae on comparisons
of the number of genera common to the two countries com-

Zoological Nomenclature. 13

pared ? and yet what exact value can we attach to the results
obtained by these comparisons, when a new and more care-
ful system of classification may at any moment reduce the
number of genera, two faunae have in common, from 100
to 10 ?

I think, then, we are justified in concluding that by
rendering the names of species, after they have been actually
established, independent of change made with a view of
adapting them to classification, we are really rendering them
more valuable as instruments for scientific research.

For purposes of detail we require the names of species to
be permanent, and that they shall be directly associated in
our minds with the objects they represent. For purposes
of generalization it is important that the names of genera
shall not have an air of fictitious actuality bestowed on
them. Let the names of genera be then considered as quite
distinct from the names of species. Let classification and
nomenclature be each freed from the bondage in which they
have been held by the attempt to unite them. If one of
our opticians were at present to offer us an instrument with
the assurance that it was both a powerful telescope and an
admirable microscope, I think we should laugh at him.
And yet the attainment of the objects of nomenclature and
classification, by one set of names, appears to me just about
as possible at present as the construction of a telescope and
microscope by one set of lenses.

But we may ask, has there been no advantage gained by
the changes that have taken place in the method of writing
our fraction? And to this I think we must answer that the
great inconvenience occasioned by the changing of to
vwST, to 8 vTrn»uT> and to T"* 11 as been hitherto balanced
by no actual advantage derived from the change.

And in asserting this I by no means would deny, that if
we had actually attained a correct idea of what genera are,
it would be an advantage that the generic part of the name
of a species should be the •same as the name of the genus
to which it belongs: I fully admit this, but it appears to me
that we should do well to delay the change till we find such
a practical unanimity actually existing with regard to genera
as there is and has been with regard to species. The

Names of
species cannot
serve two
opposite pur-'
poses.

Advantage of
system hitherto
attempted.

14

Zoological Nommclaturc.

generations to come may be able to reunite classification
and nomenclature in the manner attempted by Linnaeus,
but we are not in a position ourselves to do this; let us,
then, take care of ourselves; if we adopt the system most
convenient to ourselves, and take care that it be so simple
that it can be adapted to the classification of the future,
whatever that may be, we are certainly doing better for
posterity than by encumbering them with the incubus of a
synonymy that will require a large part of their energy to
be devoted to its comprehension.

By recognising, then, that the name of a species consists
of systenfhere the generic and trivial names taken together, and that
proposed. these must each and both be retained intact as the name of
the species, we should gain, I think, the following advantages :

1. Really permanent names for species, and the great facili-

ties resulting therefrom.

2. We should put a stop to the formation of synonyms.

3. We shall free classification from the unnatural bondage

in which it has been held by its union with the nomen-
clature of species.

4. The “ laws” for the regulation of zoological nomenclature

will be comparatively simple.

5. We shall possess a simple system of species’ names that

will probably work harmoniously with any classification
that may ultimately be adopted.

While, on the other hand, should naturalists decide to
continue with the present course of changing the most
vitally important part of the species-name in accordance
with every change of classification, they must be prepared
to bear an always increasing burden of synonymy, only to
find at last that the object they have had in view in so doing
is not only insignificant and practically unimportant, but
would have been actually attained more speedily if they had
refused to bear the burden.

IV. — The Nomenclature of the Future.

If I were to try to guess what may be the system of
classification of the future, and the nomenclature adapted
to it, I should probably prove to be ridiculously wrong in
my estimate. Believing, as I do, that zoology is at present

Zoological Nomenclature. 15

as completely in its infancy as was chemistry in the days of
Black and Lavoisier, and that the discovery of some general-
isation similar in character to the atomic theory is possible
(have we not, indeed, some of us, in the reveries suggested
by “ evolution,” already caught vague glimpses of what
might ultimately prove to be something of the sort), it is
clear to me that I am not yet in a position to determine of
what kind will be the classification of our successors.
Nevertheless, something may be said on the point without
perhaps positive disadvantage.

In “Wiegmans Archiv fur Naturgeschichte ”, xxxvii.
(1871) pp. 24-41, will be found some details as to a system
of nomenclature that shall also be a system of classification.
The name of the genus is proposed to be so constructed
that it shall indicate, by its mode of construction, the
family, order, class, and primary division of the animal
kingdom, to which the genus belongs. I have not myself
seen the paper in question, but so far as I can judge from
an abstract published by Von Harold in the “ Coleopter-
ologische Hefte” (ix. p. 234), it is a careful and sober
attempt. The only remark I need make about it, is that it
is applicable (perhaps) to a completed system of classifica-
tion, not to one in process of construction. For example,
supposing the limits of two families to be altered, all the
names of genera in the parts shifted would have to be
changed. How great then would be the confusion, if we
were again to alter our views as to what are really the
primary divisions of the animal kingdom. A paper published
by some Owen or Huxley might at one fell swoop destroy
some ten thousand or fifteen thousand names of genera, or,
what is still worse, necessitate their being changed for other
names. It is quite clear then that such a system must not
be prematurely attempted. But, supposing some such system
were adopted in the future, we can readily see how well it
would work in conjunction with a system of permanent
species-names, such as I advocate. For example, there is
a remarkable beetle whose name is at present Manticora
Scabra; this is according to my ideas its name as a species,
and as long as it is considered a species, its name shall
remain as Manticora Scabra , whatever alterations may take

Harting’s

system.

Combination
of proposed
system with
Harting’s.

Harmony be?
tween species-
names and a
system of
zoological
notation.

1 6 Zoological Nomenclature.

place in our ideas as to the genus Maniicora. Supposing
Professor Harting’s system to be in operation, the name of
the genus Maniicora would be changed to that of Manciler-
deres. Our Manticora Scabra would then always be spoken
of and written of by us as Manticora Scabra , while if we
wished to treat of the group to which it belongs for any
such purpose as classification, or consideration of genera
apart from species, we should do it by means of the term
Mancilerderes. The species forming the genus Mancilerderes
would be arranged together in a catalogue, for example,
under the name of Mancilerderes, but no species would have
the term as its own name. Mancilerderes would be clearly
understood to be a collective name : and when a naturalist
wished to deal in his writings with this genus, independent
of any particular species, he would use the term Manciler-
deres, which being thoroughly understood to be a collective
term, would be less likely to induce misconception than the
word Manticora; for this word is much associated in our
minds with a more individualised meaning.

I put this, however, only by way of illustration; for I
believe that actually results will prove Prof. Harting’s
system to be quite as useless in the future as it is at
present.

But supposing that some system were invented that would
enable us to do as the chemists do, that is to say, to desig-
nate in an unmistakable manner the particular species we
wish to allude to by a combination of figures and abbrevia-
tions ! This would no doubt be a great step in advance,
but it would not do away with the necessity for a system of
names of species to be used along with it. The fact that
the chemists have discovered the correct way of designating
a particular salt is 2 H O, C8 H4 O10 has not done
away with the necessity for, and advantage from having the
name Tartaric Acid also in use for it. No doubt the
designation of the salt, with a view to the expression of its
affinities and origin is 2 H O, C8 H.t O10 and the use
of this formula reveals to the initiated chemist a whole host
of possibilities and affinities, but to the less advanced
chemist, the formula conveys no meaning, and even the
most learned one still does, and probably always will use

Zoological Nomenclature. i 7

the name Tartaric Acid for all ordindry purposes. Our
present system of altering constantly the generic part of the
species name, is really a vague and unconscious attempt
to make the generic name serve the purposes of a system
of notation. This attempt is, however, a futile one, and
when this is fully recognized we may indulge the hope that
an impediment is removed from the path of the future
inventor of a rational system of Zoological notation.

And I think, then, we are ent’tled to consider that so far
as it is possible for us to guess as to the classification of the
future, a system of species-names made permanent on the
basis of my propositions, would harmonize well therewith.

V. — The Giving of Names.

The rest of my paper will be occupied with the con-
sideration of some details of Zoological Nomenclature ; and
in this part of my subject it will be well to commence with
some consideration on the making and giving of names.

Supposing that I am about to give a name to a species Makinganame
unknown to science, and therefore without any designation,
the steps I should take are these. I must first ascertain the
important fact that the species is really without name, for if
it be already a species named in accordance with the system
of Linnaeus, it is clear I shall be introducing a grave error
to science, by putting it forward as without name. Having
assured myself that my species is really a new one, I have
first to select a name for it, and then to make the selected
name known, for the benefit of others. In selecting the
name for my species I shall have several things to consider.

First, I must see that the name chosen be so different from
other names as to prevent the confusion arising from great
similarity : I must bear in mind that the name is intended
for use, both in writing and speaking, that it is intended to
be used throughout the civilized world, and that it is to be
created for the convenience of those using it. It is clear
then, that distinctness from other names, brevity and
euphony are the most important points I have to secure
for my name. If I obtain these, I may congratulate myself
1 have done well.

No particular directions on these points can, perhaps, Name not to
be offered to the describer with advantage, except that so z^Aogy10* m

1 8 Zoological Nomenclature.

far as distinctness of name goes, he must at. least secure
that his name shall not be the same as any other name
already in use for Zoological purposes. Some have con-
tended that it is sufficient if the name be distinct from
names already in use in the same class or order. But it
appears to me this is not enough. Suppose, for example, a
writer or lecturer on natural history required to sketch and
contrast the embryology of a species of Vermes with one of
the class Insecta, how extremely confusing it would be if it
should happen that the two species most suitable in other
respects for his purpose bore the same generic and trivial
names !

There are, however, writers who require much more in a
name than the qualities of distinctness and convenience.

Names with- A common demand is that the name shall be descriptive,
°he be™eamng or exPress some quality of the object to which it is applied.

This requisition is however founded, it appears to me, on
an inadequate appreciation of the object and use of names.
In giving a name to a genus or species, Tam not naming a
simple object, but a collection of individuals possessing
to some extent various qualities and in different degrees,
and it is not improbable that if by the name I adopt, I recall
one of these qualities, I risk giving undue prominence to a
character which the progress of knowledge may shew to be
subordinate, or even erroneous ; so that if a descriptive
word be chosen for a name it should be one of a very vague
and general character. At the same time it must be
admitted that I should not select an inappropriate name, —
one that would tend to disconnect, rather than connect, the
object with our sensorium or consciousness. Fabricius has
admirably remarked “Nomina valent uti nummi, pretio
certo, determinate. Optima sunt quse omnino nil significant.
Characterem generis essentialem generico nomine indicare
impossible, nec opus est. Charactere genus distinguimus,
nomine appellamus” (Syst. Eleutheratorum preface p. viii.)
He could scarcely have expressed the truth more pithily-
A name is intended to be a name and not a description
and if it attempt to be a description it will very possibly
produce misconception. How large a portion of the dif.
faculties of mankind is caused by good things in inappropriate
places.

Zoological Nomenclature.

19

It has also been required by some, that names should be classical names
selected from the Greek or Latin languages; or that a word
shall not be used if compounded partly from a Greek and
partly from a Latin word. But is not this putting a limita-
tion on the formation of names that is both undesirable and
unjustifiable? It should be remembered that the number
of distinct names required for the purposes of zoology is
enormous, and that short, euphonious names are none too
abundant, even when the greatest latitude is granted, as to
the sources from which they may be derived. The origin
of the superstitious dread that some men appear to entertain
of .an ill-formed (or rather what they assert to be an ill-formed)
word, is to be traced to the fact that a hundred years ago
a knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages was the chief
test of whether a man’s mind had received any training or
been totally neglected, and so it has happened that an undue
importance has been, and still is, attached to their study.

The superstition, too, has attained a longer lease of life than
it would otherwise have enjoyed, from the fact that a hun-
dred years ago, scientific works were written exclusively in
Latin, and it seemed therefore only natural that scientific
names should be Latin. It will be, however, a point gained
when it is recognised that the names of genera and species
are intended for cosmopolitan use, and do not belong speci-
ally to any language — indeed, I might go further than this,
and express my opinion that the Latin language is very ill
adapted to the purposes of scientific description, and that it
will be a gain when its use for them is altogether abandoned.

It is, however, very undesirable, for obvious reasons, to
select words in common use for other purposes as zoological wordsumicsh^
names, and to this extent a dead language is better than a able<
living one as a source of names. All that can, I think, be
said with advantage on these points is this — If a word in
common use be selected as a zoological name, it is advisable
it should be adapted by some slight change in termination
(or other point), so that sources of confusion may be avoided.

And that if a word be formed from Greek or Latin words, it
is well that this should be done so as not to shock the
prejudices of sensitive individuals, and offer them a tempta-
tion for “ meddling and muddling.”

20

Zoological Nomenclature.

The maker of a new name will also do well to define it
in a clear manner, by pointing out the way its syllables are
to be divided, their accentuation, and the length of the
vowels used in the word; and his declaration on these
points, if made at the time of publication of the name,
should be held to be authoritative and final.

Choiee of 1 must not altogether pass over the fact that the describer,
generic names. in naming a new species, will have to give it two names, a
generic word and a trivial word, and in choosing the generic-
word portion of the name, he will naturally ascertain whether
his species possesses the characters already assigned to some
genus to which a name has been given, and, if so, he will
naturally adopt that name, as the generic word in the name
of his species; if he finds, on the other hand, his species to
possess a combination of characters such as will not allow
it to be correctly designated by an already existing name of
a genus, he will have to make a new generic word for his
name, and he will accompany the publication of this word
with a statement as to the characters which, taken collec-
tively, he intends this new name to represent; or if he do
not think it desirable to make a new generic name, he must
state distinctly that his species possesses such and such
characters not reconcilable with the formula, as at present
understood, of the genus whose name he gives it. Having,
then, obtained the generic name of his new species, the
describer proceeds to complete his work by adding to this
a trivial name. Now as we have seen that it is necessary
that the new name of the species should be distinct and
different from already existing names, and as the new species
probably has the first portion of its name (the generic word)
the same as that of a number of other species, it is necessary
that the second word or trivial name should be quite different
from the corresponding portion of the name of any species
that has the same first portion: and some research will be
necessary to enable the describer to deal with this point in
a satisfactory manner.

The method When the describer has thus found a name for his new
of description, species, he will next proceed to make it known to the
scientific world. In other words, he must declare what value
this name is to represent, and he must do this in such a way

Zoological Nomenclature.

21

as to secure precision, and obtain an accurate association
between the name and the particular species it is intended
to represent. He must, in fact, accompany tha name with
as complete an account of the characters of the species it is
to represent as his knowledge will enable him to draw up.
And his object in making this description, he will recollect,
is a different one from that of the faunist or monographer,
for, whereas the latter has only to attain the provisional
object of distinguishing a particular species from others
equally well known to him, the giver of a new name to a
species should endeavour to do his work in such a way, that
the discovery of species unknown to him will not render less
certain what is the particular species with which the name
he gives is to be associated; and yet, at the same time, he
should avoid loading his description with such details as will
obscure, rather than display, the particular species intended.
He should, to begin with, possess a knowledge of what are
the important and really essential characters that distinguish
the other species to which his new one is allied; for without
this he cannot form a correct idea as to the really distinctive
characters of his new species. Strengthened by this know-
ledge, he should gather together a fair number of individuals
of his new species, and having from their study obtained an
idea of the collective characters of the species, should select
from the material so studied the most typical male individual
he can find, — in other words, tire individual that possesses
most completely the collective characters of the others, —
and this he should describe in detail; he should also state
in what respects the female differs from the other sex, and
complete his description by a statement as to the amount
of variation the individuals he has studied exhibit. I advise
the selection of a male individual, because as a general rule
it may be stated that the males of a particular species are
more completely or strikingly differentiated from the males
of allied species than the corresponding females are. There
are, however, some exceptions to this rule, and cases occur
in which the females indicate more completely than the
males the differentiation of the species ; in such cases the
characters of the description will of course be drawn from
the female instead of the male as recommended above.

22

Zoological No7nenclalure.

Preservation
of types.

Reality of
genera.

With his description completed, the describer should label
in an unmistakable manner the specimen he has made use
of for the purposes of his description as being the type of
his new species, and should label in a different manner the
other individuals from which his more general ideas as to
the species are derived. If these specimens be thus distin-
guished and carefully preserved, they will be a means of
additional certainty to future students, who may by their
examination obtain additional evidence as to the views of
the describer. The description made must then receive the
stamp of completeness, by publication. With the publication
of the description and name, the describer’s work has ended;
from that moment he has no more power over name or
description than has any other man. His work is a gift to
the commonwealth of science.

VI. — Established Names.

There are several points demanding consideration in con-
nection with the use and treatment of names already estab-
lished : and first let us take a brief glance at some of the
features of names of genera.

Though I have undertaken to consider the question of
Zoological Nomenclature without restriction, yet I have, I
hope, already made it evident that in my opinion the names
of genera cannot be dealt with at present in a way to afford
us any hopes of permanent result. Nevertheless, it is clear
that we must have names for genera, for on the Linmean
system, even in the limited sense in which I think we can
advantageously accept it, a generic name forms an essential
part of the name of the species.

In the early part of this paper I insisted that we are in a
position to give permanent names to species, because we
have arrived at a practical if not a theoretical understanding
as to the limits of species as they exist around us. But with
genera the case is very different, our ideas with regard to
them are not only unscientific, but entirely undefinable; we
have not arrived at present at any conclusions with regard
to genera that would warrant us in trying to found a system
of names far them. There are some naturalists, even, who
doubt the existence of generic characters as distinct from

Zoological Nomenclature.

23

specific characters. Nevertheless, evolution supplies us with
some suggestions, that render it possible if not probable that
the study oT genera may afford us practical results, and
allow us to ascertain that there really are such things as
genera actually existing around us, and to define their limits.

For if species are the descendants of other species having
different characters from themselves, if, moreover, of the
species of a past epoch a number disappeared without leaving
descendants, so that the species actually existing around us
are the representatives not of all the species that formerly
existed but only of a portion of them, it is clear then that
we may expect to find that there are existing around us
groups of species, well defined at present from other groups
of species ; in other words, that there are really genera.

But even without this there would be still another justifica-
tion for the belief in genera, in the fact that the order of
evolution has been, on the whole, the change from the
general to the special; for this would warrant us in the
belief that our species possess, besides their recently special-
ised characters, others of an older date, and therefore of a
more general character. If this latter, however, were the
only reason for genera, we should expect genera to be dis-
tinguished from one another by only slight characters, and
composed of few species. Indeed, it is perhaps in the fact
that there are two distinct sources of genera, that is to be
found the explanation of the puzzle that in some groups
genera are well defined and yet may comprise a large num-
ber of species, while in other cases, in order to find generic
characters at all, we are obliged to descend to points of
comparative detail.

I mention these considerations, which are certainly of a The know-
very vague and probably of a very illusory character, merely can^oniy6"^
to give force to my statement that our knowledge of genera low that of
is yet rudimentary, and that the giving of names to them at spccicb-
present is a question of secondary importance. I repeat
that what we want to enable us to understand genera is an
accurate knowledge of existing species, and a minute and
accurate understanding of the characters By which they are
distinguished from another ; when these are known and can
be eliminated from the enquiry we can then hope to-com-
rehend genera.

24

Zoological Nomenclature.

Preservation The ideas of Linnaeus with regard to genera were
tenericnamesn necessarily of a most rude and imperfect character, and
naturally the groups he called genera differed greatly from
ours. Under these circumstances, what has been the course
pursued with regard to names of genera? When the groups
of Linnaeus were altered, should they have received fresh
names, or should the old names have been retained and
applied to the new groups? In practice opposite answers
were given to this question;* some of the names Linnaeus
gave to genera have now entirely disappeared from use,
while others of his names are still used ; but in such a case
it is always as the name of a group very different in extent
and value from that to which Linnaeus applied the name.

I do not myself intend to give any complete consideration
to this question. For it is part of my argument that if we
secure permanent names for species, it will be no disad-
vantage to science to be without fixed names for genera at
present. But, nevertheless, I will call attention to one
practical point in connection with this question. It is this.
In catalogues or lists of species where names of genera are
given it is the custom to place after the name of the genus
the name of the author who first founded a genus of the
name ; but it appears to me that no really useful object is
attained by this practice, and I would suggest that the
author’s name placed after the name of a genus should be
that of an -author who desciibes the genus in the sense in
which it is actually used. For it should be remembered
that we do not use the author’s name for the purpose of
commemorating or rewarding him, but with the object of
securing precision and conveying a distinct meaning.

Emendations It has been unfortunately the practice with many writers
namesUbliShed not *° acI0Pt t^ie name given by the original namer of a
species or genus, but to use in its place another word more
or less closely resembling the original, and they make this
change on the ground that the original name was incorrectly

* I recommend any one who may wish to get a conviction of the want of
precision that has prevailed about genera and generic names, and therefore
of the unsuitableness of these to serve as the basis of a permanent nomen-
clature, to refer to the Transactions of the Entomological Society of Lev den
for the year 1870 : they will find there at p. 41, an interesting paper by Mr.
G. R. Crotch entitled “ The Genera of Coleoptera studied chronologically. ”

Zoological Nomenclature.

25

formed, and therefore requires emendation. Now we have
seen what are the really essential points for names, and that
the only demand with regard to names absolutely involved
by the principle of the Linnaean system of nomenclature is,
that a name shall be distinct and different from other
names. But “ emenders ” (I am almost tempted to say
cobblers) go far beyond this : they insist that the names
used in Z. N. shall be framed in accordance with the laws
of the Greek or Latin language (or rather in accordance
with their private ideas as to these laws.) But even suppose
this to be granted, and that it is desirable that names should
be “correctly” formed (on this point see p. 19), still it
appears to me that in altering names after they have been
already established, these emenders commit the serious error
of confounding the functions of critic and doer. Admirers
of correctly-formed words have certainly the right, and
perhaps do well in using it, to point out what they consider
to be the correct way of forming names, and obtain, if they
can do it by these means, correctly-formed names ; but
when they refuse to content themselves with this, and alter
names already established, they play the part of the de-
stroyer of permanent nomenclature rather than that of pre-
server. There are, however, I believe, “ emenders ” who
would justify their practices by arguing that it is with the
view of obtaining permanent names that they alter estab-
lished names, for that an incorrectly formed name is always
a temptation to some one to interfere with it. This argu-
ment may, it appears to me, be dealt with by a parallel.
Supposing a brigand cuts a man’s throat, will the officers of
justice hold him to have done no harm, because he argues
that if he had not done the act, it is very likely it would
have been committed before long by another band?

I think, also, we should ask emenders what guarantee
they offer us that their alterations will give us a permanent
name? After they have done their work will come others
who will also be glad to give a practical lesson in classics to
the world ; and it is at any rate possib e, if not actually
probable, that with the lapse of time different ideas may
prevail as to what is the most correct way of forming a
generic name, and turning a Greek word into Latin or
English to those held at present.

Integrity of
name.

Errors of the
press.

26 Zoological Nomenclature.

It appears to me that interfering with and altering estab-
lished names, is pursuing a course the advantage of which
is at the best slight and problematical, while the disad-
vantage is certain and immediate. I think, in short, that
the alteration of established zoological names for classical
reasons is both foolish and undesirable,— foolish, for it is to

lose a primary object in the pursuit of a secondary one,

undesirable, because it places the names of science at the
mercy of any lad fresh from college.

There are others who would say that, though these
emendations are theoretically objectionable, yet they are
practically unimportant, and that so long as the integrity of
the name is not destroyed, they may be allowed to pass.
But this is the argument of weakness, not of strength. The
integrity of the name is the name itself, — the name, the whole
name, and nothing but the name. If it be not, we may at
any rate require that it shall be settled where integrity ends
and fractions commence.

How objectionable is the practice of emendation that has
got into vogue in this insidious manner we shall see by a
slight consideration of a common instance. The older
describers, in transforming a Greek word into a zoological
name, were many of them in the habit of taking no account
of the aspirate, which in Greek writing is indicated by a
sign over another letter, while in Latin and our modem
European languages it is indicated by a letter of its own.
Classical purists assume that the older writers ought to have
introduced the aspirate into their words (though even on
this point much may be said on both sides of the question),
and not content with this assumption, actually place the H
where they consider it ought to have been, and they do this
even where it involves the alteration of the first letter of the
word. Thereby they practically substitute a new name for
the old one, for it is clear that, for purposes of alphabetical
registration, the name must be indexed, both with and
without the H ; and we are encumbered with two words for
one and the same name.

Others, again, would limit their interference with names
to the correction of errors of the press. All that need be
said on this point is, it appears to me, this : If an original

Zoological Nomenclature.

27

describer, or namer, be so careless as to put forth for a
name a word that can only be written and not spoken,
others must necessarily make such alteration in the word as
will adapt it for both purposes. Suppose, as an instance,
that a new species were described as Canis vittns, it is clear
that some alteration must be made — but that alteration
should be as slight as will render the word a name — I
should myself in such a case use vittus, and adopt the name
as Canis vittus. Suppose, however, that he had published a
Canis vivalis, or rivalis, I should adopt his name without
any change, even though there might be strong evidence to
make one believe that he intended to write nivalis ; and I
should deal just the same with generic names as the above
examples do with trivial ones.

But many will ask me, what will you do in the case of
the notorious Amphionycha Knownothing* ? I answer,
adopt it As a name, Knownothing is surely better than
“ Wladimirskyi,” or “ Zakharschevskyi,” or “ Slovtzovi,” or
“ Stscheglovi,” or “ Stschukini,” all of which have been
proposed as trivial names for species of Carabus, and
adopted without difficulty.

I think it is, then, quite clear that interference with names
once given is unadvisable ; and though it is probable that
when such alterations are made some will adopt them, yet I
do not believe they will ever obtain universal consent, and
will probably in all cases ultimately be put aside altogether.
I think therefore we are entitled to ask that they shall not
be made at all.

VII. — The “ Law of Priority.”

I will now call the reader’s attention to another point in
connection with nomenclature; it is one which, though
really of a subordinate character, has received an undue
share of attention.

Let me introduce it by saying that one of the postulates

* It may be worth while to note here that Knownothing and Copperhead
have been proposed as trivial names by American authors, No doubt it
was intended by them to allude to the political parties known by these
names in the United States. Now, it would seem to me quite as un-
. objectionable to commemorate, by means of a trivial name, a party or
group of men as a single man.

28

Zoological Nomenclature.

“ Universal
employment.’’

of Z. N. is that a species shall have but one name. It is, I
think, unnecessary to enlarge on this point ; for I think the
postulate will meet with universal assent.

In practice, however, it constantly happens that a cata-
loguer, monographer, or collector, finds that one and the
same species possesses two or more names. In such a case,
which name is the correct one? which shall he adopt?
The answer (in the shape of a general rule) is very easily
given to this question. For, it being admitted that no
species can have two names, it is clear that we have only to
ascertain the dates at which the names were given, and then
decide at once that the earliest given name is the name of
the species ; for if not, we admit that there is a period at
which it is correct that one species shall have two names ;
the inference that the oldest name is the correct name, is a
corollary that follows necessarily on the assumption of the
postulate that no species can have two names. The “ law
of priority ” is therefore something much more stable than
a law or convention — it is a reasonable and logical inference
from an universally admitted postulate.

Though the principle is in such cases clear enough, the
practical solution of the question is a much more complex
and difficult affair.

In practice, this question (what is the real name of a
species ?) requires not only evidence as to the date at which
the names in question were given, but also evidence that
these names were given to certain species ; and it appears
to me that, where the evidence on these two points is
satisfactory, there is no other conclusion possible than that
the earliest name is the correct name of the species. This
simple principle has been hitherto the admitted guide in
disputed cases. But it is necessary to notice that sugges-
tions have lately been made that it would be an advantage
to supplement the rule of priority by some other “ simple
principle ” — such as, that “ universal employment* ” of a
name shall be sufficient to establish its claim to be con-
sidered the correct name of a species, even when there is an
older name. It appears to me, however, that if Naturalists

J. O. Westwood. Proc. Ent. Soc., 1872, p. lxix.

Zoological JS/omenclatnre.

29

have not been able to agree as to what is the correct name
of a species when they have had but one law to apply, still
less will they be likely to agree when they have two “ laws ”
to litigate about. Moreover, I find it difficult to under-
stand how it is intended to prove “ universal employment.’’
Indeed, does not the very fact that there are two names in
question in any particular case, shew us that the test of
“ universal ” employment cannot be applied in that case ?

It has also been suggested “ that the maxim, ‘ Communis
error facit jus,’ should govern scientific nomenclature.’’ *
As regards this suggestion, it is hardly necessary to remark
that, if a common error does in fact make law or right, it
would rather suggest the necessity of importing the scientific
element into legislation, rather than the governing scientific
nomenclature by a legal maxim of such a character. I
have no doubt, however, that the meaning Mr Lewis has
attached to the word “jus” in the above maxim has misled
him ; it is, I should suppose, limited to expressing a “ right,”
or standard, by which past acts shall be judged, not future
ones determined.

Accepting, however, to the full the law of priority, we
often find in practice a difficulty in deciding even so simple
a question as the exact date at which a name was given.
In the remarks made on the giving of names, it has been
pointed out that no name can be considered as given till it
has been published and so made common property. It is
important, therefore, that the dates of publication of scientific
works should be accurately given in the works themselves;
self-evident as this is, it is still necessary to insist on it, for
a jpork containing a large number of descriptions of new
species has recently been published, bearing as the date of
its publication a period two years before that at which it
actually appeared.

A man of science cannot be too precise in his statement
of facts, even when they are only indirectly connected with
science; and it should be understood that it is the duty of

* W. A. Lewis, Entomologists' Monthly Mag., VIII., p. 1. Mr Lewis
has also published a pamphlet on the subject, which not a little reminds
one of the advocate who wrote on the back of a brief submitted to him —
“ No case : abuse the plaintiff’s attorney."

"Communis
error” fallacy.

Publication
and date.

3°

Zoological Nomenclature.

scientific men to see that their works appear with the exact
date of publication attached I have lately received a letter
from a describer, in which he argues that in the cases of
descriptions published by scientific societies, names should
take their dates from the moment at which the paper was
presented to the society, the basis of my correspondent’s
argument being, that it is fair to the author that this should
be the case. But this is not a reason for departing from the
simple principle that a name can only be considered to have
commenced its existence in the scientific world from the
moment of its publication. It is clear that reading a memoir
cannot be considered as publication, because both the author
and the society have it in their power to alter name or
description after the reading of the memoir. And it cannot
be too strongly urged on scientific societies, that every
portion of their proceedings shall bear the actual date of its
publication; and it should be the duty of the secretary (or
editor) to see that this is properly carried put.

Evidence When we have determined the date of a description we
other than , ... . . '

date. have still to ascertain the very important point as to whether

it applies to the species in question. This is a very much
more difficult problem than the ascertaining of a date, and
it can only be properly dealt with by a complete considera-
tion of the evidence in each particular case: and this evi-
dence is of three kinds, ist, The description itself and the
complementary evidence accompanying it (such as locality
of occurrence, statement of habit, or peculiarity of modes of
life, &c). 2nd, Tradition. And 3rd, The existence of the
individuals from which the description rvas drawn up, or of
other individuals alleged to be authentically named
The evidence The evidence under the first of these heads is the most
don!6 deiCnp’ important, and if it be of itself satisfactory, no other evidence
is necessary : if the description accord satisfactorily with the
characters of a particular species, and if it be ample and
well drawn up, and especially if it be accompanied with a
well-executed figure, the question is decisively settled. But
if the description be so deficient in any or all of these points
as to leave doubt in the opinion of a skilled or expert
enquirer into these matters, the evidence should be sought
Of tradition, under the other heads. And if it be found that scientific

Zoological Nomenclature. 3 1

treatises dealing with the matter have declared or cited the
questioned description as belonging to some ascertained
species, and if the number and importance of the treatises
in which this is declared be considerable, then also this
evidence is important. As for the evidence of types, it is
clear that this must not be exclusively or even strongly-
relied on; for the specimens, unless accompanied by an
actual declaration that they are the individuals described
(and even then they may have been interfered- with either
by fraud or carelessness), may have been labelled with the
name long subsequently to the description of the species,
so that their value would rest solely on the accuracy of
memory of the describer. Indeed, I may say that in my
opinion the sources of fallacy as regards types are so
numerous, that I think very little authority can be attached
to them, except in such cases as they are accompanied by
a declaration of the describer to the effect that they are
types, and even then their value is clearly nil if they contra-
dict the description. It is evident if a description and its
supposed types are not in accordance with one another, we
must either consider the description as merely imaginary,
and therefore without claim for consideration, or decide that
the types are valueless, and consider the case without them.

And here I cannot but allude to the careless (I had
almost written unprincipled) way in which mapy zoologists
use the term type. It has, in my knowledge, been applied
to specimens which have never been seen by the original
describer ; some writers, indeed, appear to consider nearly
every specimen as a type, if it has been determined by some
one other than themselves ; and on the authority of these
pseudo types all kinds of identifications are made. Natural-
ists will, in my opinion, do well to receive with suspicion
any announcement made on such vague authorities, as “ ex
typ.,” and insist strongly on the prime necessity of basing
the identification of species on the published descriptions
thereof.

The question, then, as to the association of a particular
name with a species is, we see, a question as to the evidence
in each case, and this evidence must be collected in a care-
ful manner and considered by skilled men. This will un-

Of types.

What con-
stitutes a type ?

32

Limit

priority.

Zoological Nomenclature.

doubtedly be a slow process, but it will be a sure one; and
I may remind the impatient ones who proclaim that we
must have a way of settling such things right off, that they
are, if they have any just voice in this matter, men of science
as well as collectors, and as such they will readily appreciate
the association of the words “ ohne hast" with “ohne rast.”
Let them recollect that in these disputed points we wish to
obtain a decision that shall be absolute, and not one that
may be reversed on the first appeal. To enable us to do
this we must in each case carefully collect the evidence and
consider it under the light of reasonable and admitted
principles.

I will bring these remarks on the rule of priority to a
conclusion by saying that it appears to me to be correct in
principle, easy in application, and the only rule likely to
obtain general assent. That to add to it a series of supple-
mentary laws will, it appears to me, complicate and not
facilitate our operations; and that these points appear to me,
after very full consideration, so clear, that I have no doubt
that to abandon the rule of priority is to abandon the only
foundation possible for a fixed nomenclature,
of There is, however, one limit to the rule of priority; it is
that a name, to be recognised by zoologists, must be given
in accordance with the method of the system of which it is
to form a part: that method we have seen to be that the
names of species are composed by generic and trivial name
together, and consequently all names, to meet with support,
must be given in works professedly or practically recognising
this principle. We have seen that the system was introduced
between the years 1750 and 1760, and we consequently have
here a fixed line beyond which we cannot go. This affords
us with another reason why the priority rule should meet
with support, for it is very clear that if we persistently adopt
the oldest name as the correct name, we must very soon
bring all the earlier-proposed names into use, and we have
then in this limit a barrier against change, the power of
which it would be impossible to equal under any other
system.

VIII. — Trivial Names.

I have, I hope, expressed sufficiently plainly my opinion

Zoological Nomenclature.

33

that the names of species consist of the generic and trivial
name combined ; and that the original combination must
remain intact if permanency of name of species is to be
anything more than a theoretical hobby. If naturalists,
however, decide not to adopt this suggestion in practice, and
to go on as they have done hitherto (holding in their theory
that the generic and trivial names form the name of the
species, but in their practice that the trivial name is the
name of the species), they will find very numerous compli-
cations as to trivial names arising from the fact that, with
changes of our views as to genera, we shift the trivial names
to other generic names. Now, it often results from this that
the trivial names require to be changed when this is done,
because Linnseus had not foreseen that this would be done,
and his system was not framed with a view to admit it.

The points arising under these changes are of so subtle a
character that it is scarcely to be hoped that practical
unanimity will be obtained about them. I shall only here
allude to them very briefly, but may take this opportunity
of stating my opinion that no result of practical importance
is obtained by the endeavour to make trivial names, con-
sidered independently of generic names, permanent, and
that therefore these points are really unimportant. It is,
indeed, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, to allow
the generic portion of the name of a species to be subject
to unlimited change, and yet to strive with all our might to
render the trivial name permanent.

Some naturalists, seeing the uncertainty of pur ideas as to Recurrence
genera, have endeavoured to make trivial names permanent of tnvml nam«
by laying down in place of the rule of Linnseus that no
trivial name can occur twice in combination with the same
generic name, the rule that no trivial name can occur twice in
the same family or sub-family. But they have overlooked the
important fact, that if the limits of genera are ill defined, the
limits of the larger groups are still more unexamined, and •
therefore more uncertain, and that if these larger groups have
to be remodelled, more alterations in trivial names would
then become necessary if their practice and principle were
admitted. To make it a law that no trivial name shall
occur twice in the same sub-family seems to me therefore

34

Zoological Nomenclature.

Erroneous

citations.

unwise, not only because of the above special reason, but also
of the more general objection drawn from the argument that
the introduction of subsidiary laws is undesirable, and tends
to complicate, not facilitate, agreement as to names. At the
same time, there can be no objection whatever to this point
being strongly pressed on original describers as one they
should keep in mind. But to go beyond that, and make
alterations in already established trivial names, is inad-
missible, and clearly indicates that those doing this have
but confused notions as to the distinction between advising
and doing. I shall make my meaning perhaps clearer by
saying that so long as the generic part of the name is
different in two species no confusion can be caused by
identity in their trivial names, and that the alteration of
these should therefore be left till such time as a change in
the generic name renders them actually necessary.

Older trivial names have been rejected for more recent
ones, also, in another case, such as the following : An
author of a fauna or monograph describes at length some
species under a generic and trivial name which have been
previously used by some older author, and this he does
under the idea that he is describing the same species as the
older author applied the name to. In this, however, he is
mistaken, and it happens that the species is in reality one
hitherto undescribed. In such a case the monographer
has, without knowing it, played the part of an original de-
scriber. Now it is clear if naturalists keep the name of
a species intact, preserving both the original generic and
trivial names as the specific name, that their course is clear
in the case above pointed out. The monographer has, it is
true, described a species for the first time, but he has not
given it a name that can be used by others, because a previ-
ous author has given the same name to a different species.
The point, however, involves in an inextricable difficulty
those who hold that the trivial name is the name of the
species, and devote their efforts for the stability of nomen-
clature to the maintaining of the oldest trivial name. For
in such cases as the one under consideration it often happens
that the species so named proves to be a different genus, as
well as a different species from that of the earlier describer,

Zoological Nomenclature.

35

and as they therefore change the generic name, it happens
that the trivial name no longer collides with that of the
earlier describer, for it is now placed in association with a
different generic name; the question then arises, are we to
adopt the trivial name in this case as the proper name of
the species? This question, be it first noted, can only
agitate those who maintain in practice the two theses — ist,
that the oldest name is the correct name of the species, and
2nd, that the name of the species means the trivial name;
and the answer they are bound to give is therefore clear; —
they are bound to accept the oldest trivial name. The
actual practice on this point has, however, been various.
In some of such cases the oldest trivial name has been used,
and in others rejected, the reason assigned for the rejection
being that the description was accompanied by an erroneous
citation (it would be more correct to say a citation made
under an erroneous impression). But it is clear that the
citation is not a part of the description, and if the description
be in itself unmistakable, the erroneous citation cannot in-
validate either this or the date. Indeed, if the evidence
independent of the citation be sufficient, the erroneous cita-
tion cannot affect the claim of the name, any more than
would a slight imperfection in the description itself. The
citation in such a case is only part of the evidence, and
cannot by itself decide the question. There are some cases,
however, in which a description is not only referred to but
actually reproduced, and though in such cases the evidence
of types or tradition may lead us to believe that the author
who adopted the description had really a different species in
view to what the first describer had, 1 do not think we can
adopt the name; unless, indeed, he made some change in
the description which would support the evidence afforded
by the types, or tradition.

There 'is another point to which I must briefly allude,
viz., the custom of adding, after the trivial name of a species,
the name of an author. This is an incubus that can only
be tolerated by its being proved to be absolutely necessary.
It is an outgrowth or excrescence which pretty clearly indi-
cates the inefficiency of the present method; there being at
present no real accord as to names, it has been necessary

Appending
author s name
to trivial name

36

Zoological Nomenclature.

not only to mention the name but to give some means of
identifying the name. It is an attempt to make the trivial
name valid or distinct from other trivial names by means of
an author’s name, instead of by the generic name as Linnaeus
intended. When, for instance, a catalogue was made, and
a generic name placed at the head of a series of trivial names,
many, if not all, of which were divorced from the generic
names with which they were originally associated, it became
of value to add to the trivial name some special assistance
for its identification. Hence the practice in question. Should
naturalists, however, decide that the argument of this paper
is valid, viz., that the generic and specific name in combina-
tion form the real name of the species, and that it is the
interest of science they should be kept together as such —
then the reason for the practice having ceased to exist, the
practice itself no doubt will speedily die out.

IX. — The Nomenclature of Varieties.

My notice of Zoological Nomenclature would perhaps be
incomplete if it made no allusion to the naming or designa-
tion of varieties — i.e., groups of individuals occupying a
position intermediate between the individual and the species.

It is to be hoped that varieties will soon receive more
attention than they have hitherto done; for the mode of
differentiation of species in the past, can only be really
scientifically studied by the light afforded us by a knowledge
of the process of differentiation as going on at present.
This will involve an accurate knowledge of the amount of
variation actually exhibited by one or more species (selected
as specially fitted for the purposes of this observation), and
then observations as to whether this remains stationary from
generation to generation or whether it increases or diminishes,
or whether (as the writer believes) it increases in some species
and diminishes in others. When this study is systematically
entered on, the means of specifying any variety that may be
alluded to becomes of considerable importance. The ques-
tion, however, is surrounded with difficulty. The basis on
which zoologists ground their claim for names for species is
the fact, that observation teaches the mthat species, as exist,
ing at present, are undoubtedly differentiated from one
another. But with varieties exactly the opposite is the case.

Zoological Nomenclature.

37

The only definite distinction that can be practically applied
as to whether a given group be a species or variety is the
test of actually existing differentiation. When we find (or
consider we are justified in infering from our limited obser-
vations) this differentiation to be complete, we call the groups
of individuals so isolated a species, when we find the differ-
entiation incomplete we call it a variety. The term variety,
it is now well understood by zoologists, is a very vague one.
It includes both groups of individuals of large extent and
mere individual aberrations. Taking these points into con-
sideration, I come to the conclusion that the giving of dis-
tinct and definite names to varieties is likely to induce fallacy
in our minds, and that there is no sufficient argument by
which it can be justified. It appears to me that the purposes
of science will be best served by there being no names for
varieties, but that it shall be left to each recorder to indicate
what variety he alludes to by special means he may devise
for his particular purpose. To facilitate the doing this every
author who specializes varieties should do it by means of a
letter or figure, or combination of the two. If a recorder
then wish to give some important fact as to a variety, he can
do it by mentioning (as. always) the name of the species and
adding “ var. a. 2 Mulsant’’ : or, if the variation be geo-
graphically determined, he can indicate his variety by the
mention of locality. These methods it may be observed are
vague, but I believe them to be advisable for that very
reason.

X. — Summary.

I shall conclude by summing up the contents of this
pamphlet in a series of propositions, on which I ask the
criticism of naturalists, and I shall append an extract from
a Catalogue of British Coleoptera to serve as a practical
illustration.

Prop. 1. — That a system of Nomenclature, which should
commend itself to naturalists so as to meet with unanimous
employment, would be a great means of facilitating and
advancing the study of zoology.

Prop. 2. — That any system hoping to command the assent
of naturalists must be able to furnish a series of names
(for animals) that shall be both permanent and precise.

33

Zoologital Nomenclature.

Prop. 3. — That we are at present in a position justifying us in
the attempt to establish a series of permanent names for
species that may serve as the basis for a more extensive
system.

Prop. 4. — That our knowledge (or accord) as to genera —
i.e., groups of greater complexity than species — is at
present so far from settled and final that their names can-
not as yet form an essential portion of a system of per-
manent names for species.

Prop. 5. — That, nevertheless, the system actually in use for
naming species adopts the generic name as its basis, and
that this system having, gained the approbation of natu-
ralists, it is unwise to attempt to supplant it.

Prop. 6. — Therefore, recognising that the generic name is
used for two distinct purposes, that we treat it in two dis-
tinct manners: or, in other words, recognise that the
generic word, as forming part of the species:name, is a
distinct thing from the generic name used, unaccompanied
by any trivial name, as the appellation of a group of
species.

Prop. 7. — That the correct name of a species is the earliest two
words (generic or mnemonic word and trivial word) that
were first given in combination to it, as a specific name.
Prop. 8. — That this earliest combination shall always (so far
as the efforts of naturalists can secure this) remain and be
considered the name of the species; and if it be absolutely
necessary that for use in any particular language it must
undergo some slight alteration, that such alteration shall
be limited to its use in that one language, and not affect
the preservation of the name in its unaltered form by the
cosmopolitan body of naturalists.

With regard to the specimen of a catalogue of British
Coleoptera given below, I shall not attempt to answer by
anticipation the criticisms which I trust it may evoke; but
will content myself with remarking, by way of explanation,
that the first column gives the name of the species as it was
originally established, and which I consider should be pre-
served intact and unchanged, so as to form a means of con-

Zoological Nomenclature.

39

necting as one whole the literature of zoology from generation
to generation : while the second column represents a portion
of the ideas at present put forward as to the classification,
or grouping into genera, of these species : and while asking
the naturalist to preserve the first column as sacred, we can,
in compensation, place this second column completely at his
mercy: the student may add to it, subtract from it, or alter
it, just as he may consider desirable in the interest of science.
Should a cataloguer think it necessary to indicate more than
the arrangement of the species into genera, he can easily
add this; and should he desire to give more than one system
of generic arrangement, this also can easily be accomplished.
On the other hand, should the object be to offer only a
condensed pocket list for use by mere collectors, the first
column may be given alone. To facilitate reference a full
alphabetical index should accompany the systematic list.

(Column i.) Species.

1. Scarabceus mobilicornis Fab.

2. Scarabceus typheeus Lin.

3. Scarabceus stercorarius Lin.

4. Scarabceus spiniger Marsh.

5. Scarabceus foveatus Marsh.

6. Scarabceus tnutaton Marsh.

7. Scarabceus sylvaticus Panz.

8. Scarabceus verna lis Lin.

9. Scarabceus pyreticeus Charp.

10. Scarabceus hispidus Pont,
ix. Scarabceus sabulosus Lin.

1 2. Silp ha sea bra Lin.

(Column 2.) Genera.

| Odontseus Er.

| Minotaurus J ek.

Geotrupes Jek.

| Anoplotrupes Jek.
I Sternotrupes Jek.

}

Trox Harold.

Perth : printed bt n. Christie * Son, 25 Hioh Street.