22 NOMENCLATURE. 



that be a reason for its adoption ? What is normal here is not normal 

 somewhere else ; the young are frequently found in one place, while the old 

 haunt totally different districts; in one place the old name would be per- 

 fectly proper ; the other would be, for equally good reasons, adopted in an- 

 other locality. The same objection may be made to geographical names 

 when they are the oldest, and yet are found to apply to species of most 

 extraordinary geographical distribution. It seems, at first glance, very un- 

 fortunate that the specific names of DnJbachiensis and of sardica* should 

 have to be retained for species having such an extensive range, — in one 

 case, from the Sandwich Islands, Japan, Indian Ocean, to the Red Sea; and 

 in the other, on the two sides of North America, throughout the Northern 

 Atlantic to Norway and Siberia and the coast of Kamtchatka. There cer- 

 tainly is nothing in a name if we judge it by its appropriateness, especially 

 in the case of H. sardica which is not found in Sardinia at all; yet what 

 do we gain by substituting any of the synonymes, such as neglectus or 

 saxatilis for Drobachiensis, as lias been frequently proposed? The time 

 of geographical names is as much a part of the history of our science as 

 any other, and if it has passed out of date, lei us recognize it in the future 

 by avoiding such names, but do not let us attempt to obliterate the past of 

 our history by too much wisdom in our present time. Some writers have 

 gone so far as to recognize the validity of geographical names for the 

 sake of showing how far a species was cosmopolitan and the variations to 

 which it was subject, retaining these names even after all the possible grada- 

 tions existing between the two extremes had been clearly traced. If we 

 allow this principle, where shall we stop'.' 



The propriety, or rather the feasibility, of retaining the same generic 

 name in different departments of Natural History has frequently been dis- 

 cussed. Botanists all agreeing to retain a generic name, even when em- 

 ployed in Zoology, we need only return the compliment and examine the 

 possibility of retaining the same generic name in different branches of 

 Zoology. It is claimed, on the one hand, with great plausibility, that, 

 owing to the constant and more definite specialization of the different 

 branches of Zoology, there can be no clashing of any consequence. Some 

 Entomologists even go so far as to retain the same generic name for the 

 various sections of entomology when it may be, apparently, employed safely. 

 They see no objection to a Lepidopterologist. Coleopterologist, an Hyme- 

 nopterologist. or a Dipterologist duplicating generic names. We strike here 



* Hippnno'e variegala A. Agass. from authentic spec, of Klein. 



