1896. CHANGE IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 311 



name, but the author whose diagnosis of the species is adopted 

 by the writer quoting. In thousands of cases the name of a 

 species without the authority for the name means nothing at all, 

 because it may mean either of several species, or because there is no 

 means of ascertaining what characters it implies. This only applies 

 to names when simply quoted. If the name is given in a systematic 

 revision with the diagnosis and description following, the name of the 

 authority is of less importance, the writer is his own authority. 

 There are many cases in which names are used without quoting the 

 authority for them, because it is evident from the context, or it is 

 understood, that the nomenclature of some standard work is followed. 

 There are other cases, probably not very numerous, in which no 

 authority is given, because the name is universally accepted, and any 

 manual will supply the characters and position of the species ; but, as 

 a general rule, the name of an authority is necessary, and the most 

 convenient practice is to give, not the name of the writer who first 

 described the species, but of the writer who has made the most recent 

 and accurate revision of its characters and position. In fact, in 

 quoting, it does not matter what name we use, or whether we all use 

 the same, provided that we use one by which the characters and 

 affinities of the species designated can be ascertained with least 

 trouble. 



But up to the present only the citation of names has been 

 considered ; what are we to do about the giving of new names ? 

 It may be said that, if the first name has no more right than 

 subsequent names, then there is nothing to restrain an author 

 from giving his own names to species or genera already described, 

 and so we shall have an endless multiplication of synonyms ; but the 

 reply to this is, that it should be a rule that no one should give a new 

 name to a conception already named, and this rule would have as 

 much force as the present rule of priority. The rule of priority does 

 not prevent the describing of the same species under different names, 

 and notoriously has not prevented the appearance of synonyms. If 

 zoologists would be more careful to write diagnoses which were 

 diagnostic, and descriptions which were intelligible, there would be 

 less probability of the re-naming of species already described. There 

 can be little doubt that the law of priority is a direct encouragement 

 to careless and inadequate description, because workers are over- 

 anxious to get their specific names pubHshed. If they knew that a 

 name attached to a slipshod, obscure description was likely to be 

 passed over and forgotten, and replaced by another given by a more 

 careful worker, they would make less haste and more speed. 



To sum up, the whole duty of systematists with regard to names is 

 never to invent a new one or alter an accepted one, except to express 

 a new conception. To resuscitate a forgotten name for a known form 

 is as bad as to invent a new name for it. 



J. T. Cunningham. 



