THE LOGIC. 15 
century, assured him that, at a public celebration of the centenary 
of Linnzus, there was displayed, writ in large letters, this motto: 
“God Created; Linneus Named.” With admirable terseness 
did this express what a century ago was the general opinion, 
that Linneus had been the wonderful man with whom had orig- 
inated both genus names and species names for animals and 
plants. Is there, then, after the lapse of yet another century, 
here and there a man in Italy, and here and there a man in New 
York, who would keep alive this antiquated cult ? 
As regards duplicate binary names, they are naturally offen- 
sive to every man of common sense, not to say of literary or 
scientific good taste; and I have no doubt there are botanists, 
if not zoologists, who while they openly employ them yet secretly 
abhor them. 
But it is not so much the names themselves, their absurdity 
and senselessness to which we object, as it is the groundless as- 
sumption on which they are based, namely, that Linneus is the 
father of nomenclature and that the names duplicated do in 
their singleness belong to him by right of priority; the truth 
being that all of them are genus-names, and were all current, 
some of them for centuries, before Linnzus. 
As regards the measure of success attending recent efforts to 
establish duplicate binaries, I do not see what influence this can 
have upon the thought and action of the scientific and scholarly ; 
for these as a class, unless they have resigned individual free- 
dom of thought and action, are governed by principle and 
guided by reason. As an argument, the fact that a multitude 
follows a certain course, is more in use with politicians than 
with botanists and zéologists. It is true that both the contend- 
ing parties as to nomenclature in this country have used this 
argument; but neither has thereby added strength to a cause, 
or dignity to a position. 
But now, had I been in the critic’s place, advocating duplicate 
binaries, felicitating my party on the growing popularity of 
these nomenclatorial deformities, and citing the most significant 
instances of their use with authors, I do not think I could have 
failed to see in this much berated Italian malacologist about the 
most notable example of them all; for he alone among them— 
