122 Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 



the name of the earliest known, or most typically characterized genus 

 in them ; and that their subdivisions, termed subfamilies, should be 

 similarly constructed, with the termination ince. 



These words are formed by changing the last syllable of the genitive case 

 into idee or incc, as Strix, Strigis, Slrigidce, Buceros, Bucerotis, Bucerotidce, 

 not StrixidcB, Buceridce. 



[ Specific names to be written with a small initial.] 



A convenient memoria technica may be effected by adopting our next pro- 

 position. It has been usual, when the titles of species are derived from pro- 

 per names, to write them with a capital letter, and hence when the specific 

 name is used alone it is liable to be occasionally mistaken for the title of a 

 genus. But if the titles of species were invariably written with a small ini- 

 tial, and those of genera with a capital, the eye would at once distinguish the 

 rank of the group referred to, and a possible source of error would be avoided. 

 It should be further remembered that all species are equal, and should there- 

 fore be written all alike. We suggest, then, that 



§ C. Specific names should ahoays be written with a small initial 

 letter, even when derived from persons or places, and generic names 

 should be always written with a capital. 



[ Tfie authority for a species, exclusive of the genus, to be followed by a di- 

 stinctive expression.'] 

 The systematic names of zoology being still far from that state of fixity 

 which is the ultimate aim of the science, it is fretpjently necessary for correct 

 indication to append to them the name of the person on whose authority they 

 have been proposed. When the same person is authority both for the specific 

 and generic name, the case is very simple ; but when the specific name of one 

 author is annexed to the generic name of another, some difficulty occurs. 

 For example, the Muscicapa crinita of Linnaeus belongs to the modern genus 

 Tyrannus of Vieillot ; but Swainson was the first to apply the specific name 

 of Linnaeus to the generic one of Vieillot. The question now arises, Whose 

 authority is to be quoted for the name Tyrannus crinitus? The expression 

 Tyrannus crinitus, Lin., would imply what is untrue, for Linnaeus did not use 

 the term Tyrannus ; and Tyrannus crinitus, Vieill., is equally incorrect, for 

 Vieillot did not adopt the name crinitus. If we call it Tyrannus crinitus, 

 Sw., it would imply that Swainson was the first to describe the species, and 

 Linnaeus would be robbed of his due credit. If we term it Tyrannus, Vieill., 

 crinitus, Lin., we use a form which, though expressing the facts correctly, and 

 therefore not without advantage in particular cases where great exactness is 

 required, is yet too lengthy and inconvenient to be used with ease and rapi- 

 dity. Of the three persons concerned with the construction of a binomial 

 title in the case before us, we conceive that the author who first describes 

 and names a species which forms the groundwork of later generalizations, 

 possesses a higher claim to have his name recorded than he who afterwards 

 defines a genus which is found to embrace that species, or who may be the 

 mere accidental means of bringing the generic and specific names into con- 

 tact. By giving the authority for the specific name in preference to all others, 

 the inquirer is referred directly to the original description, habitat, &c. of the 

 species, and is at the same time reminded of the date of its discovery ; while 

 genera, being less numerous than species, may be carried in the memory, or 



