Further Observations on Rales for Nomenclature. 275 



Art. IV. Further Observations on " Rules for Nomenclature." — 

 By W Ogilby, Esq., M.A., F.R.A.S., F.L.S., F.G.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



Before proceeding more particularly to notice the several 

 points of Mr. Strickland's ' Reply' to my former ' Observa- 

 tions,' I must be permitted to express my deep regret that he 

 should have felt personally hurt at any thing I may have said 

 on that occasion, since nothing was farther from my wish than 

 to give personal offence to any individual ; and I hoped that 

 I had sufficiently guarded myself against misinterpretation 

 in this particular, by the explicit declaration, twice repeated, 

 that " my censure was directed solely against the abuse of a 

 system pregnant with many evils, and by no means intended 

 to apply to its abettors or supporters." Mr. Strickland's name 

 was unavoidably mixed up with my observations ; but if so, 

 I took occasion to separate him personally from their opera- 

 tion, by the unequivocal manner in which I expressed those 

 feelings of respect, which, I may be permitted to say, in com- 

 mon with all who have the pleasure of his acquaintance, I en- 

 tertain for him, both as a gentleman and a zoologist. I must 

 again express my regret that I should have been misunder- 

 stood upon this point ; but such being the case, I feel grate- 

 ful to Mr. Strickland for the temperate and gentlemanly tone 

 which he has preserved throughout the discussion, not less 

 than for the nattering terms in which he is pleased to speak 

 of his adversary ; and if he has on one or two occasions mis- 

 apprehended my meaning, it was but natural under the cir- 

 cumstances, and I should be the last person to complain. — 

 Having the same end in view, and differing only as to the 

 proper means of attaining it, our sentiments must coincide in 

 the long run, however we may disagree in words ; and if I 

 "lashed" the system which Mr. Strickland supports, I can as- 

 sure him that my censure was by no means directed against 

 any one "code of rules" in particular, but applied to the whole 

 system of f codification ;' and so anxious was I to avoid offend- 

 ing those who differ with me in opinion, that the only rule which 

 I criticised at length, was selected simply because it originat- 

 ed with Illiger, (or it may be at a still earlier period, for I am 

 not curious in this sort of antiquities), and therefore, I could 

 not be charged with affronting any living author. I shall now 

 briefly advert to some of the principal points of Mr. Strick- 

 land's reply. 



In charging me with "deprecating all laws," and "pouring 

 out unqualified censure upon the whole code of rules," &c. 

 Mr. Strickland will see, upon farther reference to my paper, 

 that he has permitted his haste to betray him into an error, 

 and thus into an unintentional mistatement. So far am I from 



