16 OPIIIOMASTIX JANUALIS. 



iSeba, more tlian a century ago, jDublish a fine folio, with figures that 

 are better than some of those we see nowadaj's, and shall wo ignore 

 his names when they are such as may properly be taken ? In putting- 

 such a name as OphiophoUs hcUi-s for OjihiophoUs acitlecda, I think I have 

 gone too fiir, because the name belUs of Linck is used as part of a diag- 

 nosis and not as a name. I was, however, encom-aged in the selection 

 bv the usa<ie of Johnson and of Forbes. 



As to the second point, Dr. Liitken expresses great astonishment, 

 " after all that has been Avritten," that anybody should change the 

 (mihnrihj with each change in the comhlnutinn of a name. For instance, 

 we have, in 1851, Oplmm imhm Ltk. 1 afterwards attempted to show 

 that Ophittra was preoccupied, and made a name, Ophiogl'/pha, to take 

 its place ; and the (juestion now Is, Shall it be written Ophm/li/pha 

 nodoxd Ltk. or ()j)h!<yh/plia nodosa Lvm. V Dr. Liitkcn has no cause for 

 astonishment. There are two ])arties to this question. That to which 

 he belonirs insists on considerinjf credit or honor the real reason for 

 vising names of authors ; and always speaks of the '• injustice " done 

 Avhen an author's name is lost sight of The party whose views I hold 

 maintains that nomenclature is a .s//.sfeiii of exact rcf/ktraiion, and that, 

 witli the present enormous mass and confusion of titles, no other guide 

 is possible ; and further, that the credit of a zoologist does iiot rest on 

 his monogram, but on something better. Will the reputation of John 

 E. Gra}^ be greater because his name thus appears often ; or will that 

 of Lacazc-Dutliiers be less because his appears seldom ? After what I 

 have said in tlie Bulletin {\o\. I. p. 336, note), I can add nothing more 

 to the point than a quotation from Alexander Agassiz (American Nat- 

 uralist, Vol. V. ]). 354) : — 



" The history of the present confused condition of nomenclature is 

 an interesting one ; it is the attempt to show by the binomial system, 

 not only the correct name of any animal, but, at the same time, give a 

 short historical sketch of the clianges the name has undergone. The 

 name of an animal or plant is that binomial combination which it has 

 first received, let us say A b from Linnjcus; \_A (generic) b (specific)]. 

 Subsequent changes, such as tiie transfer of this to a different genus, 

 B, by Cuvier, are simple matters of registration, a part of the hidor// of 

 the science, showing what Cuvier thought of the aftlnities of the species 

 named A b by Linnaeus. When, then, we speak of this species as B b 

 Cuvier, we are recording his views as an investigator, and this does not 

 lessen whatever credit there may be in the original description of A b 

 by Linnivus. If afterwards Blainville comes and says that Cuvier 

 should have referred A b to the genus C of Latreille, and quotes this 

 species hereafter as C b Blainville, he is only recording his opinion, and 

 so on through indefinite time. Chanr/es tvhich the profjress of science render 

 necessar/f in the position of A b of Linnwm arc or should be (pioted under the 



