110 Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 



Among the numerous rules for nomenclature which have been proposed by 

 naturalists, there are many which, though excellent in themselves, it is not 

 now desirable to enforce*. The cases in which those rules have been over- 

 looked or departed from, are so numerous and of such long standing, that to 

 carry these regulations into effect would undermine the edifice of zoological 

 nomenclature. But while we do not adopt these propositions as authoritative 

 laws, they may still be consulted with advantage in making such additions to 

 the language of zoology as are required by the progress of the science. By 

 adhering to sound principles of philology, we may avoid errors in future, 

 even when it is too late to remedy the past, and the language of science will 

 thus eventually assume an aspect of more classic purity than it now presents. 



Our subject hence divides itself into two parts ; the first consisting of Rules 

 for the rectification of the present zoological nomenclature, and the second of 

 Recommendations for the improvement of zoological nomenclature in future. 



PART I. 



RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE. 



[Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature.^ 



In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent and universal 

 zoological nomenclature, it must be premised that we refer solely to the Latin 

 or systematic language of zoology. We have nothing to do with vernacular 

 appellations. One great cause of the neglect and corruption which prevails 

 in the scientific nomenclature of zoology, has been the frequent and often 

 exclusive use of vernacular names in lieu of the Latin binomial designations, 

 which form the only legitimate language of systematic zoology. Let us then 

 endeavour to render perfect the Latin or Linnsean method of' nomenclature, 

 which, being far removed from the scope of national vanities and modern 

 antipathies, holds out the only hope of introducing into zoology that grand 

 desideratum, an universal language. 



\_Law of Priority the only effectual and just oiie.~\ 



It being admitted on all hands that words are only the conventional signs 

 of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its end effectually by 

 being permanently established and generally recognized. This consideration 

 ought, it would seem, to have checked those who are continually attempting 

 to subvert the established language of zoology by substituting terms of their 

 own coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist in 

 confounding the name of a species or group with its definition ; and because 

 the former often falls short of the fullness of expression found in the latter, 

 they cancel it without hesitation, and introduce some new term which ap- 

 pears to them more characteristic, but which is utterly unknown to the science, 

 and is therefore devoid of all authority-)-. If these persons were to object to 

 such names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, &c, in cases where 

 they fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or should complain of 

 the names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that they were devoid of meaning, 

 and should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appella- 



* See especially the admirable code proposed in the ' Philosophia Botanica' of Linnasus. If 

 zoologists had paid more attention to the principles of that code, the present attempt at 

 reform would perhaps have been unnecessary. 



f Linnaeus says on this subject, " Abstinendum ah hac innovatione qua: nuncpiam cessa- 

 ret, quin indies aptiora detegerentur ad infinitum." 



