Zoology uniform and permanent. 117 



Knighti, JBullocki, Eschscholtzi, would be quite unintelligible if they were 

 Latinized into Vicdvardi, Cnichti, Bullocci, Essolzi, &c. But words of bar- 

 barous origin, having no fixed orthography, are more pliable, and hence, 

 when adopted into the Latin, they should be rendered as classical in appear- 

 ance as is consistent with the preservation of their original sound. Thus the 

 words Tockus, awsuree, argoondah, kundoo, &c. should, when Latinized, have 

 been written Toccus, ausure, argunda, cundu, &c. Such words ought, in all 

 practicable cases, to have a Latin termination given them, especially if they 

 are used generically. 



In Latinizing proper names, the simplest rule appears to be to use the ter- 

 mination -us, genitive -i, when the name ends with a consonant, as in the above 

 examples ; and -ius, gen. -ii, when it ends with a vowel, as Latreille, Latreillii, 

 &c. 



In converting Greek words into Latin the following rules must be attended 

 to:— 



v „ y. 



When a name has been erroneously written and its orthography has been 

 afterwards amended, we conceive that the authority of the original author 

 should still be retained for the name, and not that of the person who makes 

 the correction. 



PART II. 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE NOMENCLATURE IN FUTURE. 



The above propositions are all which in the present state of the science it 

 appears practicable to invest with the character of laws. We have endeavour- 

 ed to make them as few and simple as possible, in the hope that they may be 

 the more easily comprehended and adopted by naturalists in general. We are 

 aware that a large number of other regulations, some of which are hereafter 

 enumerated, have been proposed and acted upon by various authors who have 

 undertaken the difficult task of legislating on this subject ; but as the enforce- 

 ment of such rules would in many cases undermine the invaluable principle 

 of priority, we do not feel justified in adopting them. At the same time we 

 fully admit that the rules in question are, for the most part, founded on just 

 criticism, and therefore, though we do not allow them to operate retrospec- 

 tively, we are willing to retain them for future guidance. Although it is of 

 the first importance that the principle of priority should be held paramount 

 to all others, yet we are not blind to the desirableness of rendering our sci- 

 entific language palatable to the scholar and the man of taste. Many zoolo- 

 gical terms, which are now marked with the stamp of perpetual currency, are 

 yet so far defective in construction, that our inability to remove them without 

 infringing the law of priority may be a subject of regret. With these terms 

 we cannot interfere, if we adhere to the principles above laid down ; nor is 

 there even any remedy, if authors insist on infringing the rules of good taste 

 by introducing into the science words of the same inelegant or unclassical 

 character in future. But that which cannot be enforced by law may, in some 



