6 NATURAL SCIENCE. Jan., 



parties ought to prove happy in the consciousness that they are 

 helping the zoologists of the world. 



The Nomenclature of Species. 



Naturally the recording of species is closely associated with 

 their nomenclature. M. Gustave F. Dollfus has some " Observations 

 a la note de M. Jousseaume sur les fossiles de Corinthe " in the 

 thirteenth volume of the Bulletin de la Societe geologique de France 

 (1894, pp. 286-294). In his paper he makes the following remarks on 

 the nomenclature of species : — 



" It is certain that instances of binomial nomenclature are found 

 in many authors before Linne, but more often animals were designated 

 by a Latin phrase, a kind of diagnosis of which the terms were more 

 or less modified, transposed, and rearranged by authors. It is certain 

 that the philosophical idea of a binomial nomenclature formed of two 

 constant terms belongs truly to Linne, and came even to him only 

 after some time. In the tenth edition of the ' Systema Naturae ' . . . 

 the new nomenclature does not appear ; it only exists in the twelfth 

 edition, of 1766, and it was with a thorough knowledge of the matter 

 that the British Association, when it established the ' Rules of Nomen- 

 clature,' decided not to make them apply before Linne, recognising the 

 futility of a search before that date, and considering as fortuitous 

 the instances that could be quoted from earlier authors." 



This is very admirable so far as the fixation of Linnaeus is con- 

 cerned, but we should like M. Dollfus to point out to us what Latin 

 phrases in the place of names are to be found in the tenth edition of 

 the "Systema," and also how the binomial system is better established 

 or better carried out in the twelfth edition than in the tenth. 



Trinomial Nomenclature of Plants. 



When international cooperation has secured a proper recording 

 of animals and plants, many current abuses and difficulties will 

 disappear. In the Bulletin of the Tovvey Botanical Club for October, 

 1894, two systematic papers, one on the Smilaceae of North and 

 Central America, by T. Morong, the other a Revision of the genus 

 Lathyms in the same countries, recall some remarks on nomenclature 

 to which, not long since, we gave utterance. We mean the use of a 

 trinomial designation for a plant. Whatever may be the relation 

 between a " variety" and a true " species," that relation is certainly 

 made no clearer by tacking the varietal on to the specific name 

 without a break. Moreover, when we come to run down Mr. Morong's 

 citations of Smilax, for instance, we find that the meaning of the 

 trinomial is by no means constant. Thus Smilax invenusta armata, 

 A. DC, implies, or should imply, 5. invenusta, Kunth, var. armata, 

 A. DC. ; but Smilax Bona-nox Wrightii, A. DC, cited correctly, is 5. 

 Bona-nox, L. Subspec, Wrightii, A. DC. ; while 5. Bona-nox senticosa, 

 A. DC, turns out to be 5. Bona-nox, L., Subsp. polyodonta, var. 



