26 NOMENCLATURE. 



scribed it first there or not) by that name and refer to him for further 

 information. If I write Amblypneustes ovum Agass., I intend to say that 

 Agassiz has somewhere mentioned a species by that name, and reference to 

 the proper work will show if he means a new species or an old species. 

 If I write Ainblypiintxtea ovum Lam. sp., I may or may not remember 

 where the genus Amblypneustes was first published, — and in the multi- 

 plicity of genera at the present day to remember where a genus was first 

 proposed is as impossible as to remember always where a species was first 

 described, — the reference simply tells that after Lamarck's time somebody 

 removed ovum to the genus Amblypneustes, but we get no other informa- 

 tion to be made available without further search. The practice of regard- 

 ing the authority given after a quotation simply as a mutter of reference, 

 and not as conferring any special honor or distinction on the writer quoted, 

 would go far, I am persuaded, to do away with such constant changes, made 

 with the only idea, I presume, of gratifying somebody's vanity, for the 

 change of name teaches us nothing. 



The practice of the old writers before the time of Linnams was to cite 

 authors, and, not being burdened with the question of authority, they were 

 quoted for the information to be found there. The mode in which our 

 synonymy is made up will, if analyzed, show us that this is the clearest way, 

 perhaps, out of the various difficulties. We do not. in making our synonymes, 

 write simply Amblypneustes ovum Lam. sp., and omit everything else ; we 

 write 



Echinus ovum Lam., 1 816, A. s. V. 

 Amblypneustes ovum Ac, 1841, Anat. g. Ech. 



we refer to the place where information can be obtained, and when speak- 

 ing of a species we have therefore two ways open. — either to adopt the 

 method of always quoting it as first named, which is its true name, Eeltiiws 

 ovum Lam. ; or else to use a reference, — the last reference is not always 

 the necessary one, but that reference which we think truly expresses our 

 ideas of its relationship. For this reason I would say Amblypneustes ovum 

 Agass. If anybody either previously or afterwards has transferred the 

 species to a genus which does not agree with my views of its affinities, I do 

 not quote it when speaking of it, while another author may do that in 

 accordance with his views. Whichever name we adopt, the quotation of 

 the appropriate place where further information can be found is given, 

 which is not supplied by writing Amblypneustes ovum Lam. sp. The 



