Zoology uniform and permanent. Ill 



tlons, they would not act more unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they 

 do in the case before us ; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what 

 conventional sound we agree to designate an individual object, provided the 

 sign to be employed be stamped with such an authority as will suffice to 

 make it pass current. Now in zoology no one person can subsequently claim 

 an authority equal to that possessed by the person who is the first to define a 

 new genus or describe a new species ; and hence it is that the name origin- 

 ally given, even though it may be inferior in point of elegance or express- 

 iveness to those subsequently proposed, ought as a general principle to be 

 permanently retained. To this consideration we ought to add the injustice 

 of erasing the name originally selected by the person to whose labours we 

 owe our first knowledge of the object ; and we should reflect how much the 

 permission of such a practice opens a door to obscure pretenders for dragging 

 themselves into notice at the expense of original observers. Neither can an 

 author be permitted to alter a name which he himself has once published, 

 except in accordance with fixed and equitable laws. It is well observed by 

 Decandolle, " L'auteur meme qui a le premier etabli un nom n'a pas plus 

 qu'un autre le droit de le changer pour simple cause d'impropriete. La pri- 

 orite en effet est un terme fixe, positif, qui n'admet rien, ni d'arbitraire, ni 

 de partial." 



For these reasons, we have no hesitation in adopting as our fundamental 

 maxim, the " law of priority," viz. 



§ 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group or the 

 describer of a species should be permanently retained, to the exclu- 

 sion of all subsequent synonyms (with the exceptions about to be 

 noticed). 



Having laid down this principle, we must next inquire into the limitations 

 which are found necessary in carrying it into practice. 



[Not to extend to authors older than Linnceus.~\ 



As our subject matter is strictly confined to the binomial system of nomen- 

 clature, or that which indicates species by means of two Latin words, the one 

 generic, the other specific, and as this invaluable method originated solely 

 with Linnaeus, it is clear that, as far as species are concerned, we ought not 

 to attempt to carry back the principle of priority beyond the date of the 

 12th edition of the ' Systema Naturae.' Previous to that period, naturalists 

 were wont to indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but 

 by a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of which 

 method was productive of great inconvenience. It is true that one word 

 sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, but these rare cases were 

 only binomial by accident and not by principle, and ought not therefore in 

 any instance to supersede the binomial designations imposed by Linnaeus. 



The same reasons apply also to generic names. Linnaeus was the first to 

 attach a definite value to genera, and to give them a systematic character by 

 means of exact definitions; and therefore although the names used by pre- 

 vious authors may often be applied with propriety to modern genera, yet in 

 such cases they acquire a new meaning, and should be quoted on the author- 

 ity of the first person who used them in this secondary sense. It is true, 

 that several of the old authors made occasional approaches to the Linnaean 

 exactness of generic definition, but still these were but partial attempts ; and 

 it is certain that if in" our rectification of the binomial nomenclature we once 



