established Scientific Names. 339 



secondly, is the proposed substitute free from objections ? If 

 these two objections are answered in the affirmative, then may 

 Mr. Strickland answer his in the affirmative, and vice versa. 

 But to say that every change must be rejected, is as irrational 

 as to say that every alteration must be adopted ; and, con- 

 sequently, neither of these extremes will ever prevail among 

 the mass of rational beings, however either may be cherished 

 as pet projects by certain theorists. 



Mr. Strickland next informs us : — " Again, if some adopt 

 the alteration, a large number will not ; and hence it is that 

 we rarely find the same species labeled alike in two museums." 

 In this case, the writer who changed the objectionable for the 

 unobjectionable is not in fault, but the M large number " of 

 persons who do not adopt the improvement; and it is to this 

 quarter, accordingly, that we must direct our disapprobation. 

 And, if the true principles of classification were understood, 

 and thereby the number of anti-reformers diminished, there 

 would not be this division : unanimity would prevail, instead 

 of the anarchy which Mr. Strickland is labouring so hard 

 (though, probably, unconsciously) to introduce. 



" In short," continues Mr. Strickland, " if this practice be 

 once given way to, there will soon be an end of all nomen- 

 clature, and, through it, of all science ; for true it is, that 



' Nomina si pereunt, perit et cognitio rerum.' 

 If names perish, the knowledge of things perishes with them." 



Here Mr. Strickland plainly gives us to understand, that the 

 well-being of science depends on nomenclature : of what vital 

 importance, then, to render the latter as free from error as 

 circumstances will admit ! It is rather a strange argument in 

 defence of erroneous names, that the welfare of science depends 

 on sound nomenclature. If " the knowledge of things " de- 

 pends on " names," this is certainly a pretty good reason for 

 paying attention to the correctness of the latter. 



Mr. Strickland observes, " Where an old genus is divided 

 into several new ones, new appellations must, of course, be 

 found for them ; but, even then, the original name should be 

 retained for that group which is the most typical of the whole." 

 This latter proposition sounds well in theory, but will be 

 found, on many occasions, impracticable. Thus, when the 

 great genus Mbtacilla of Linnaeus was divided into many 

 genera, that designation should, according to Mr. Strickland's 

 theory, have been given to the genus treeling* (Silvia), which 



* See the Analyst, No. xv. (vol. iv. p. 78.), for " An Elucidation of the 

 Three British Treelings." 



c e 2 



