NOMENCLATURE. 23 



upon an arbitrary distinction, — what constitutes an independent depart- 

 ment now is not likely to remain one always ; specialists may hereafter play 

 a very unimportant part in the general progress of Natural History, and it 

 seems as if we were knowingly introducing a most fertile element of discord 

 into the discussion of the stability of generic names, — a question already 

 sufficiently complicated. Are we to follow this same rule for Echinoderms 

 and the other Radiates, where the number of species of each order is com- 

 paratively small ? Can we repeat a generic name in Annelids, in Crustacea, 

 and in Insects, because they belong to different classes? The intimate con- 

 nection existing between Echinoderms and some Annelids seems likely to 

 make a department of these two classes ; and those who study Annelids or 

 Crustacea are certainly of necessity compelled to have something to do with 

 other Articulates. In fact, the Marine Invertebrata, Radiates, Mollusks, 

 Articulates, will always remain a special field of study ; and their connection 

 with other classes of the same branches is so intimate that we cannot, con- 

 sistently, draw a line for the retention of generic names, which would be 

 limited by special departments of study. 



When writing the Nomenclator Zoblogicus, Professor Agassiz proposed a 

 large number of alterations in the spelling of the generic names in accord- 

 ance with their correct etymology. It certainly would be a most desirable 

 end to have our generic names etymologically and orthographically correct, 

 but we are prevented from making the improvement, however desirable, 

 from our inability to deal with names which have no etymology, and which 

 we must either throw out or accept as they stand ; if we accept them, we 

 cannot refuse the same privilege to names partially or nearly correct; so 

 that, when quoting an author, it is always best to quote him verbatim and 

 retain his spelling. The only correction allowable seems to be that of the 

 gender of the specific name attached, which should be corrected in our own 

 books, but quoted in the synonymy as it stands. For this reason the same 

 genus in the accompanying Chronological List, when spelled differently, is 

 always supposed to be a new genus ; of course in the synonymic list this is 

 not the case, unless it is clearly a typographical error, in which case the fact 

 is mentioned in brackets. If it were advisable, therefore, to retain Cidaris 

 and Cidarites, I claim that they are not identical, the termination being am- 

 ply sufficient to distinguish them ; and we ought not to reject names dif- 

 fering as little as Moulinia, Moulinsia, Moulinsium, Cassidula, Cassidulus, 

 simply because they are likely to be mistaken for one another ; in our pres- 



