266 Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 



is changed to Plectorhamphus. It is, we conceive, the bounden duty of an 

 author when naming a new genus, to ascertain by careful search that the 

 name which he proposes to employ has not been previously adopted in other 

 departments of natural history *. By neglecting this precaution he is liable 

 to have the name altered and his authority superseded by the first subsequent 

 author who may detect the oversight, and for this result, however unfortu- 

 nate, we fear there is no remedy, though such cases would be less frequent 

 if the detectors of these errors would, as an act of courtesy, point them out 

 to the author himself, if living, and leave it to him to correct his own inad- 

 vertencies. This occasional hardship appears to us to be a less evil than to 

 permit the practice of giving the same generic name ad libitum to a multi- 

 plicity of genera. We submit therefore, that 



§ 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed 

 for some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species 

 in the same genus, when still retained for such genus or species. 

 \_A name whose meaning is glaringly false may be changed.~] 



Our next proposition has no other claim for adoption than that of being a 

 concession to human infirmity. If such proper names of places as Covent 

 Garden, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Newcastle, Bridgewater, &c, no longer sug- 

 gest the ideas of gardens, fields, castles, or bridges, but refer the mind with the 

 quickness of thought to the particular localities which they respectively de- 

 signate, there seems no reason why the proper names used in natural history 

 should not equally perform the office of correct indication even when their 

 etymological meaning may be wholly inapplicable to the object which they 

 typify. But we must remember that the language of science has but a limit- 

 ed currency, and hence the words which compose it do not circulate with 

 the same freedom and rapidity as those which belong to every-day life. The 

 attention is consequently liable in scientific studies to be diverted from the 

 contemplation of the thing signified to the etymological meaning of the sign, 

 and hence it is necessary to provide that the latter shall not be such as to 

 propagate actual error. Instances of this kind are indeed very rare, and in 

 some cases, such as that of Monodon, Caprimulgus, Paradisea apoda and 

 Monoculus, they have acquired sufficient currency no longer to cause error, 

 and are therefore retained without change. But when we find a Batrachian 

 reptile named in violation of its true affinities, Mastodo?isaurus, a Mexican 

 species termed (through erroneous information of its habitat) Picus cafer, or 

 an olive-coloured one Muscicapa atra, or when a name is derived from an 

 accidental monstrosity, as in Picus semirostris of Linnaeus, and Helix dis~ 

 juncta of Turton, we feel justified in cancelling these names, and adopting that 

 synonym which stands next in point of date. At the same time we think it 

 right to remark that this privilege is very liable to abuse, and ought there- 

 fore to be applied only to extreme cases and with great caution. With these 

 limitations we may concede that 



§ 11. A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition 

 which is likely to propagate important errors. 



[Names not clearly defined may be changed.~] 



Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the name is given, it 

 cannot be recognized by others, and the signification of the name is conse- 



* This laborious and difficult research will in future be greatly facilitated by the very useful 

 work of M. Agassiz, entitled " Nomenclator Zoologicus." 



