112 Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 



trace back our authorities into the obscurity which preceded the epoch of 

 its foundation, we shall find no resting-place or fixed boundary for our re- 

 searches. The nomenclature of Ray is chiefly derived from that of Gesner 

 and Aldrovandus, and from these authors we might proceed backward to 

 iElian, Pliny, and Aristotle, till our zoological studies would be frittered 

 away amid the refinements of classical learning*. 



We therefore recommend the adoption of the following proposition : — 

 § 2. The binomial nomenclature having originated with Linnaeus, 

 the law of priority, in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to 

 the writings of antecedent authors. 



[It should be here explained, that Brisson, who was a contemporary of 

 Linnaeus and acquainted with the ' Systcma Naturae,' defined and published 

 certain genera of birds which are additional to those in the 12th edition of 

 Linnams's work, and which are therefore of perfectly good authority. But 

 Brisson still adhered to the old mode of designating species by a sentence 

 instead of a word, and therefore while we retain his defined genera, we do 

 not extend the same indulgence to the titles of his species, even when the 

 latter are accidentally binomial in form. For instance, the Perdix rubra of 

 Brisson is the Tetrao rufus of Linnaeus ; therefore as we in this case retain the 

 generic name of Brisson and the specific name of Linnaeus, the correct title 

 of the species would be Perdix rufa.~] 



£ Generic names not to be cancelled in subsequent subdivisions. .] 



As the number of known species which form the groundwork of zoological 

 science is always increasing, and our knowledge of their structure becomes 

 more complete, fresh generalizations continually occur to the natui'alist, and 

 the number of genera and other groups requiring appellations is ever be- 

 coming more extensive. It thus becomes necessary to subdivide the contents 

 of old groups and to make their definitions continually more restricted. In 

 carrying out this process, it is an act of justice to the original author, that 

 his generic name should never be lost sight of ; and it is no less essential to 

 the welfare of the science, that all which is sound in its nomenclature should 

 remain unaltered amid the additions which are continually being made to it. 

 On this ground we recommend the adoption of the following rule : — 



§ 3. A generic name when once established should never be can- 

 celled in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but retained in a 

 restricted sense for one of the constituent portions. 



[^Generic names to be retained for the typical portion of the old genus."} 



When a genus is subdivided into other genera, the original name should 

 be retained for that portion of it which exhibits in the greatest degree its 

 essential characters as at first defined. . Authors frequently indicate this by 

 selecting some one species as a fixed point of reference, which they term the 

 " type of the genus." When they omit doing so, it may still in many cases 

 be correctly inferred that ilwfrst species mentioned on their list, if found 

 accurately to agree with their definition, was regarded by them as the type. 

 A specific name or its synonyms will also often serve to point out the parti- 

 cular species which by implication must be regarded as the original type of a 

 genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of the old genus 



* " Quis longo sevo recepta vocabula commutaret hodie cum patrum ? " — Linnceus. 



