in the '^ Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,^^ 101 



Species also is equally with genus the creature of the under* 

 fitanding. It may be equally applied to all the groups in the scale 

 of generalization, unless to that which we consider the highest 

 genus. Both these terms are in fact relative, and are used perhaps 

 with logical correctness only when an immediate reference is 

 made to each other. The same group is a genus or a species, ac- 

 cording to the relative place which the mind assigns it in our 

 ascending scale. " These universals are genuses," says Dr. Watts, 

 " if compared with less common natures ; and they are species, if 

 compared with natures more common. So Bird is a genus, if 

 compared with Eagle, Sparrow, Raven, which are also common 

 natures ; but it is a species., if compared with the more genjeraj 

 nature, AnimaL'^* 



conventional, and if naturalists agreed among themselves to use that of sub» 

 genus in the same sense as section or subdivision, there is no reason why it 

 should not be adopted. But something more is inferred in these subgenera 

 tiian their being merely sections of a genus. They are elevated into a higher 

 rank by being distinctly characterized and separately and scientifically named; 

 and herein lies the main objection. When we give a name to what we call 9, 

 subgenus, we intend that name either to be used or not. If the latter is our 

 intention, we fall into the errour of increasing the number of names without 

 any ostensible benefit. If we mean on the other hand that the name should 

 be used, we create confusion between the generick and subgenerick name. 

 We will take an example from the highest source. The sacred beetle of Egypt 

 belongs to the genus Scaraboeus, M'L., and to the subgenus Tleliocantharus^ 

 M'L. Are we to call the insect Scarabceus sacer, or Heliocantharus sacer? 

 Were we to decide on calling all species belonging to a subgenus by the sub- 

 generick term, we fall moreover into the inconsistency of designating equivalent 

 species by titles of unequivalent value. Some species will have a generick and 

 some a subgenerick title. Cetonla aurata for instance, and Heliocantharus 

 sacer, although insects of equal importance, have names, the first as generick, 

 of higher, and the latter as subgenerick, of subordinate value. The uniformity 

 of nomenclature, one of its highest merits, is thus sacrificed to what can only be 

 called a temporary expedient. If in fact we consider our groups to be worthy of 

 separate characters and separate names, there is no reason why they should 

 not in the first instance be called genera, and the higher group receive a deno- 

 mination of still higher import. We thus at once meet and overcome the 

 difficulty that is imposed upon us by the influx of new forms, and number-f 

 less species, without exhausting our efforts in the vain endeavour to defer ^ 

 jreform in nomenclature which must ultimately be adopted. 

 * Logic. Part I. chapt. III. Sect. III. Note 1st. p. 35. 



