256 NATURAL SCIENCE. April, 



Linne's ' Philosophia Botanica ' appeared, in which his new system of 

 nomenclature was first fully and distinctly propounded." Though 

 Linnaeus on the whole towered above his contemporaries, it is a 

 mistake to suppose that he was on a uniform level at all points of 

 knowledge. In several special departments of zoology he was con- 

 spicuously below the specialists in those branches, and therefore in 

 his favour to cancel the properly constructed systematic names which 

 they were the first to give, can hardly square with the humblest, 

 let alone any lofty, ideal of justice. 



In the German rules there are some inconsistencies. A footnote 

 to the second explains that the sentences in small print contain 

 explanations, exemplifications, and recommendations. But the first 

 sentence in small print attached to the third rule contains the ominous 

 word " must," which may be explanatory, but does not read like the 

 language of advice. The rule in question is that " Scientific names 

 are to be regarded as Latin words." Then follows the exhortation in 

 small print that " In words derived from the Greek the following 

 transliterations must uniformly be employed." It is not twenty-three 

 but fifty years ago that George Grote, the famous historian, taught 

 us to welcome such words as Aristeides, Helios, Asklepius, Koronis, 

 and, in regard to this innovation, said, " I have approximated as 

 nearly as I dared to the Greek letters in preference to the Latin." 

 But the German ordinance, while not attempting to introduce 

 the simple and much-needed service of distinguishing the long 

 vowels from the short, would now compel us, as of old, to change 

 EI into I, K into C, and so forth. If this is meant to be retrospective, 

 the interference with established names will not be trifling. Such 

 words as Cheirocratus, Leptocheiriis, Stylocheiron, Kallospongia, Kcntrodorus, 

 will be tortured out of their accustomed form. In the interests of 

 pronunciation an Englishman might well wish that, at least for 

 scientific names, that silly C, the opprobrium of our alphabet, had 

 been altogether discarded. As Grote says, " The ordinary practice of 

 substituting, in a Greek name, the English C in place of the Greek K 

 is indeed so obviously incorrect, that it admits of no rational justification. 

 Our own K precisely and in every point coincides with the Greek K : 

 we have thus the means of reproducing the Greek name to the eye 

 as well as to the ear, yet we gratuitously take the wrong letter in 

 preference to the right. And the precedent of the Latins is here 

 against us rather than in our favour, for their C is really coincident 

 with the Greek K, whereas our C entirely departs from it, and 

 becomes an S before E, I, JE, CE, and Y." Further on he says, "We 

 mar the unrivalled euphony of the Greek language by that multiplied 

 sibilation which constitutes the least inviting feature in our own." 



But, again, why should we be forced or induced in the name of 

 Latinity (!) to use such forms as Linnausi and Mobinsispongia, while 

 nothing is done to prevent the naming of a genus Platysidgnm, a form 

 which is neither Greek nor Latin nor Latinised Greek ? Why should 



