282 Further Observations 



typical species, typical groups, and typical genera. Now if the 

 word type be merely synonymous with example, I see no ob- 

 jection to it, but on the contrary have employed it in this sig- 

 nification myself: but it is notoriously employed by others in 

 a very different sense, and one to which I confess I can attach 

 no definite meaning. A generic term, such as the name of a 

 group, genus, or family, necessarily expresses an abstract idea, 

 which refers to no existing thing, but is a mere creature of 

 abstraction, or if you will, of imagination. To talk therefore 

 of the type of an abstract idea, is sheer nonsense, and only 

 betrays how little those who use the term study its import. 



Turning to the code of Illiger, I find the following enact- 

 ment ; "Nomina ex vocabulo grceco et latino similibusque hy- 

 brida, non agnoscenda sunt ; " which I quote merely to shew 

 the singular latitude which the legislators allow themselves, 

 even in breaking through their own rules. There is not a single 

 instance of the Gh'eek affix idae or adce being appended to a 

 Latin word, in which they do not openly violate this law ! — 

 But Mr. Strickland may tell me that the law is not found in 

 his code: very true, but it is as good a law as any found there, 

 and proves that whilst the authority of the legislators clashes 

 inter se, they are unreasonable in attempting to make it obli- 

 gatory with others. Again, according to Illiger, " Nomina 

 anatomicorum, artificum, (et vita communis) nomenclatu- 

 ris communia, omittenda sunt." Here is a splendid field o- 

 pen for the poachers ; and it must be confessed that they have 

 the example as well as the precept of the author. What other 

 purpose this pernicious retrospective principle can possibly 

 answer, unless it be charitably intended to prevent us from 

 confounding Arvicola vulgaris with Columella or Trip tol emus, 

 or mistaking Tantalus Ibis for the ancient prototype of the 

 " tea-totallers," I am utterly at a loss to conceive. But I have 

 spent more time upon this part of the subject than I had ori- 

 ginally intended, though I am still far from having exhausted 

 the objections which I might urge against the system of "co- 

 dification." I hope however I have said enough to justify my 

 former denunciation of the rules, as " arbitrary, dogmatical, 

 and carelessly drawn up." 



Mr. Strickland says, " Mr. O. says that euphony and pro- 

 priety of application are principles which he finds no where 

 clearly developed in any of the codes of nomenclature lately 

 published. Now on turning to vol. i. n. s. p. 175, he will 

 find that euphony is provided for by Rule 13, and that Rules 

 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21, are all intended to insure 

 propriety of application ; so that the phrase, " no where 

 clearly developed in any of the codes," is another instance of 



