20 CODE OF NOMENCLATURE. 



Balccna tschiekagliuk and B. agamachtschik Pallas, etc." (D.-vtL, Report, 

 p. 54.) Much as the infliction of such names upon science is to be regretted 

 for the past, and sedulously as it should be avoided in the future, there ap- 

 pears to be no way by which such barbarisms can be changed or rejected, 

 consistently with the rule requiring rigid adherence to the original orthog- 

 raphy of names. Having been introduced in the science as if they were 

 Latin words, that is to say, as a part of a Latin binomial designation, they 

 are best treated simply as if misspelled or wrongly constructed : which fault, 

 in the judgment of the Committee, does not. require rejection, or even emen- 

 dation. 



The case is otherwise with a class of names of which patdlc -stride, cited 

 by Dall, after Bourguignat, may be taken in illustration. This is not, nor is 

 it intended to be, a Latin binomial introduced in zoological nomenclature at 

 all, having no more standing than ' green limpet ' could have in the language 

 of science. It is simply a French vernacular name, however similar in sound 

 and shape to Patella inridis, and is not properly within the scope of zoologi- 

 cal nomenclature. 



The examples of Hyperoodon butzkrff and patclle I'iriJe represent two 

 large classes of cases of which they respectively furnish a criterion. Names 

 of the former class are not to be modified or rejected ; names of the latter 

 class form no part of zoological nomenclature, and are not to be considered 

 at all. (See DALL, Report, p. 54.) 



PRINCIPLE IV. Zoological nomenclature has no necessary 

 connection with botanical nomenclature, and names given in 

 one of these two systems cannot conflict with those of the other 

 system ; use of a name in Botany, therefore, does not prevent 

 its subsequent use in Zoology. 



REMARKS This has relation to one of the most mooted points among 

 natur. ilists, and is intended to determine the question whether or not the 

 use of a name in Botany shall prevent its subsequent employ in Zoology. 

 The duplication of names in the two great branches of biology, though 

 highly undesirable and to be sedulously avoided, is no sufficient reason for 

 the rejection of a name which has once been introduced in either system of 

 nomenclature. In this particular, Zoology may ignore botanical names 

 without ill result. While it is quite true that "the principles and forms of 

 nomenclature should be as similar as possible in Botany and Zoology" (DE 

 ('. \\nou, !:), it is no less true that "the manner in which Botany ami the dif- 

 ferent branches of Zoology have reached their present state, bcin^ far from 

 uniform, and the nature of the organisms treated of being dissimilar, an ab- 

 solute identity in the application of nomenclature is impracticable, even if it 

 were wholly desirable, 1 ' though "the fundamental principles and the end to 

 be attained are the same in both branches of study." (IJALL, Rep., p. 23.) 



