NOMENCLATURE. 21 



can only be guided by collections made from the same localities, and adopt 

 what seems most probable as correct, retaining, whenever possible, the 

 names of the old authors, either for the species, as we now understand it, or 

 for some part of the old collective name limited in a way which appears to 

 have the greatest probability in its favor. 



The strictest adherence to the rule of priority* must be our only safety 

 as far as the specific name is concerned ; for once admit only a moderate ap- 

 plication of this rule, subject to the regulations of any scientific body or 

 person, and we introduce endless confusion. Each case is to be judged by 

 itself on its own merits. An old name, and the oldest name, once re-estab- 

 lished, there is an end to all disputes ; but as long as we except this for one 

 cause, and that for another, we open the door for endless discussions between 

 those who wish the exception to be made in one way rather than in the op- 

 posite, while perhaps they would both agree on the older name. In adopt- 

 ing an old name, the question of its appropriateness frequently seems a 

 valid reason for preferring a more recent name, and one apparently more 

 suitable. The old name was given to the young, or it was an abnormal 

 condition, while the recent name applies to the usual form ; yet why should 



* It is, indeed, puzzling to ascertain with justice when an antique name should be substituted for a 

 more recent one ; by recent I mean any name posterior to Linnaeus. There are, of course, as a general rule, 

 all the arguments in favor of the adoption of the time of Linna?us, of some special edition of the Systema 

 Natura?, as the starting point for the adoption of strictly binomial names. Unfortunately, in the case of 

 Echinodcrms we can hardly say that Linnauis did even justice to the works of his predecessors. To unite 

 as Asterias and Echinus all the subdivisions proposed by Link, by Breynius, was certainly a step backward 

 at that time. Link, Klein, and Breynius specially showed a philosophical treatment of their subject 

 far in advance of their age, and it was not till after the first quarter of this century that their labors 

 began to be properly appreciated. This long neglect is certainly no excuse for not adopting wdiat there is 

 good in their works; and because Linna?us refused it recognition, we should not, if we can, fail to give 

 them, the pioneers in the study of Echinoderms, due credit for what belongs to them. This difficulty 

 of establishing the first starting-point for the adoption of the binomial system is not limited to Echinoderms 

 alone- It occurs in other classes of the animal kingdom. It seems to me that whenever we can, with 

 the aid of authentic specimens, restore the names proposed by these earlier writers, where, as is frequently 

 the case, they propose excellent generic divisions, we should not hesitate to adopt them, no matter how 

 great a disturbance it may bring into recent nomenclature. But I wish to be distinctly understood to 

 admit that this is only practicable from an examination of authentic specimens, and that I have no wish to 

 perpetuate names based upon descriptions or figures of old authors, or upon any lucky guess proposed 

 concerning them. The above remarks apply not only to generic names, but also to specific. We fre- 

 quently find in old authors, either accidentally or not, binomial names ; these have been restored when an 

 examination of authentic specimens made it possible. Of course, when no such nomen triviale of Linne 

 (our specific name) was to be found, no attempt has been made to re-establish from the nomen specijicum 

 (the diagnoses of our days) a specific name, by selecting a suitable combination. 



