40 HALF-AN-HOUR 



with their own die, and then pass it on. They have their favourite 

 authors, old and respectable, with whom they throw in their lot — 

 their prejudices, mayhap. They may think it does not suit them 

 to recognise young and rising men, their own rivals, and so Truth 

 stands still, till Time has done its work, and Truth stands out at 

 last, clearly revealed. 



Nomenclature.— As to the name of a certain Diatom, I don't 

 care two straws about. If, as is admitted. Smith was the first to 

 describe it correctly, his designation must, by the laws of Priority 

 of Nomenclature, stand. I don't know how far our members are 

 acquainted with the proceedings which took place to settle the 

 laws that were to regulate for the future the question of Priority 

 of Nomenclature. They are briefly as follows : — 



Some years ago the whole subject was in a state of chaos. 

 The incessant hair-splitting of some observers, the description of 

 objects from imperfect observation, without any pains taken to 

 trace out their life-history ; the multiplication of books describing 

 the same thing by different names, according to the fancy of the 

 author, made it imperative that steps should be taken to put a 

 stop to such a serious and rapidly-growing evil. The matter was 

 brought before the " High Court of Parliament for Science," the 

 British Association. Much consideration was given to it, and a 

 committee of men, the most eminent for their scientific attain- 

 ments, was appointed, which drew up a few brief and simple rules 

 that should ever after regulate the subject. If an author described 

 an object in briefs simple terms, whereby it could be recognised by 

 other competent observers, the name bestowed by him upon it must be 

 accepted. A thorough overhauling of scientific nomenclature fol- 

 lowed ; old authors were hauled through, and if on mature con- 

 sideration it was agreed that they had complied with the conditions 

 stated, their names took precedence, and we had all to go to 

 school again, to learn a lot of (to us) new names for objects, well 

 and familiarly known the world over by names in some cases 

 much more appropriate. I remember the name of Anguinaria 

 anguina as a case in point. The name is singularly appropriate 

 and picturesque, but somebody, most likely Ehis or Lamarck, had 

 called it long before by another name, which, upon my word, I 

 could not tell without looking up, and by that name it now goes, 

 the canon having been sufficiently complied with. I remember 

 well remonstrating with Busk about it, but the laws are as the 

 laws of the Medes and Persians — inexorable, and it is no use for 

 anyone to attempt to alter them, however much we might w^ish to. 

 Waiving altogether the question of the superior descriptiveness of 

 the name, Scoliopleura tumida, still the canons are laid down, and 

 MUST be abided by. Having received personal civilities from 



