Propositions relative to the Nomenclature of Zoology. 109 



guages on a sound basis. Why, then, do zoologists hesitate in performing 

 the same duty ? at a time, too, when all acknowledge the evils of the present 

 anarchical state of their science. 



It is needless to inquire far into the causes of the present confusion of 

 zoological nomenclature. It is in great measure the result of the same branch 

 of science having been followed in distant countries by persons who were 

 either unavoidably ignorant of each other's labours, or who neglected to in- 

 form themselves sufficiently of the state of the science in other regions. And 

 when we remark the great obstacles which now exist to the circulation of 

 books beyond the conventional limits of the states in which they happen to 

 be published, it must be admitted that this ignorance of the writings of others, 

 however unfortunate, is yet in great measure pardonable. But there is another 

 source for this evil, which is far less excusable, — the practice of gratifying 

 individual vanity by attempting on the most frivolous pretexts to cancel the 

 terms established by original discoverers, and to substitute a new and un- 

 authorized nomenclature in their place. One author lays down as a rule, 

 that no specific names should be derived from geographical sources, and un- 

 hesitatingly proceeds to insert words of his own in all such cases ; another 

 declares war against names of exotic origin, foreign to the Greek and Latin ; 

 a third excommunicates all words which exceed a certain number of sylla- 

 bles ; a fourth cancels all names which are complimentary of individuals, and 

 so on, till universality and permanence, the two great essentials of scientific 

 language, are utterly destroyed. 



It is surely, then, an object well worthy the attention of the Zoological 

 Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, to devise 

 some means which may lessen the extent of this evil, if not wholly put an 

 end to it. The best method of making the attempt seems to be, to entrust 

 to a carefully selected committee the preparation of a series of rules, the 

 adoption of which must be left to the sound sense of naturalists in general. 

 By emanating from the British Association, it is hoped that the proposed 

 rules will be invested with an authority which no individual zoologist, how- 

 ever eminent, could confer on them. The world of science is no longer a 

 monarchy, obedient to the ordinances, however just, of an Aristotle or a Lin- 

 naeus. She has now assumed the form of a republic, and although this revo- 

 lution may have increased the vigour and zeal of her followers, yet it has de- 

 stroyed much of her former order and regularity of government. The latter 

 can only be restored by framing such laws as shall be based in reason and 

 sanctioned by the approval of men of science ; and it is to the preparation of 

 these laws that the Zoological Section of the Association have been invited 

 to give their aid. 



In venturing to propose these rules for the guidance of all classes of zoolo- 

 gists in all countries, we disclaim any intention of dictating to men of science 

 the course which they may see fit to pursue. It must of course be always at 

 the option of authors to adhere to or depart from these principles, but we 

 offer them to the candid consideration of zoologists, in the hope that they 

 may lead to sufficient uniformity of method in future to rescue the science 

 from becoming a mere chaos of words. 



We now proceed to develope the details of our plan ; and in order to make 

 the reasons by which we are guided apparent to naturalists at large, it will be 

 requisite to append to each proposition a short explanation of the circum- 

 stances which call for it. 



