Bibliographical Notices. 369 



I think, expect that the majority of naturalists will sufficiently ap- 

 preciate the claims of such rare and obscure works as Mcehring's 

 ■ Genera Avium,' and the first edition of Linnaeus, as to alter a no- 

 menclature which they have employed all their lives in favour of one 

 which has been forgotten for a century. Here is, I think, a strong 

 case made out for establishing a " statute of limitation." Let na- 

 turalists agree, once for all, to draw an absolute line at the date of 

 1760, when the elaborate standard work of Brisson appeared, and 

 when the " binomial method " was first dawning on the mind of the 

 great Linnaeus, and let them admit no genera on the authority of any 

 prior author, nor even of the earlier works of Linnaeus himself. 



Unless some such restriction be made, it is to be feared that the 

 principle of priority, instead of producing uniformity of nomencla- 

 ture, will, from the want of a fixed point of departure, lead to greater 

 confusion than now exists. 



Another respect in which I think Mr. Gray has rather over-legis- 

 lated, is that of altering names on the ground, not of their identity, 

 but only of their similarity to others previously used. He cancels, 

 for instance, the names Astur, Brachypterus, Tyrannula, Stelleria, 

 Calliste, on account of their resemblance to the names Aster, Bra- 

 chypteryx, Tyrannulus, Stellaria, Callistus, previously employed* in 

 other branches of science. For such changes he cites the authorities 

 of Dr. Horsfield and Mr. Swainson, but I think it is very question- 

 able whether it would be prudent for naturalists to allow this prac- 

 tice to become a law. The total number of generic names which 

 have been proposed in natural history is probably not less than 

 30,000, and we may be well satisfied if, amidst this vast multitude, 

 we can guard against the repetition of identical terms, without being 

 too fastidious as to those which are only similar. Indeed, the num- 

 ber of duplicate identical names is now becoming so considerable, 

 that some naturalists (with whom I am far from agreeing) are be- 

 ginning to plead for their preservation when they occur in distant 

 departments of organic nature. It is then hardly to be expected 

 that the majority of naturalists will consent to the cancelling esta- 

 blished names on the ground of mere resemblance to previous ones. 

 And the extension of science has now caused so much division of 

 labour, that a student in one department is seldom even aware of 

 the existence of these allied terms in other branches of natural hi- 

 story, much less is he likely to be led into error by them. The an- 

 cient Latins could distinguish muscus from musca, or ovis from ovum, 

 without falling into error, and why may not the moderns ? 



A further argument against this practice is, that it is impossible 

 to define what amount of resemblance between two words shall jus- 

 tify the cancelling one of them. When the same name is repeated 

 twice over, the case does not admit of dispute ; but if mere simi- 

 larity were declared illegal, the litigation would be endless. If 

 Stelleria cannot coexist with Stellaria, what is to become of Otus 

 and Otis, Lepus and Lepas, Sylvia and Silpha, Sturnus and Sterna, 

 Colymbus and Columba, Hirundo and Hirudo, &c. &c. ? 



It appears to me far better to retain all generic names which ex- 

 Ann. $ Mag. N. Hist. Vol. viii. 2 B 



