366 Rules for Rendering the Nomenclature of Zoology Uniform. 



genus. But if the title of species were invariably written with a small 

 initial, and those of genera with a capital, the eye would at once dis- 

 tinguish the rank of the group referred to, and a possible source of 

 error would be avoided. It should be further remembered that all 

 species are equal, and should therefore be written all alilce. We sug- 

 gest, then, that 



§ C. Specific names should always be written with a small initial 

 letter, even when derived from persons or places, and generic names 

 should be always written with a capital. 



The authority for a species, exclusive of the genus, to be followed by a dis- 

 tinctive expression. — The systematic names of zoology being still far 

 from that state of fixity which is the ultimate aim of the science, it is 

 frequently necessary, for correct indication, to append to them the name 

 of the person on whose authority they have been proposed. When 

 the same person is authority both for the specific and generic name, 

 the case is very simple, but when the specific name of one author is 

 annexed to the generic name of another, some diflBculty occurs. For 

 example, the Muscicapa crinita of Linnaeus belongs to the modern genus 

 Tyrannus of Vieillot ; but Swainson was the first to apply the specific 

 name of Linnceus to the generic one of Vieillot. The question now 

 arises, whose authority is to be quoted for the name Tyrannus crinitus f 

 The expression Tyrannus crinitus, Lin., would imply what is untrue, 

 for LinuiBus did not use the term Ttjrannus, and Tyrannus crinitus, 

 Vieil.,is equally incorrect, for Vieillot did not adopt the name crinitus. 

 If we call it Tyrannus crinitus, Sw., it Avould imply that Swainson 

 was the first to describe the species, and Linn£fius Avould be 

 robbed of his due credit. If we term it Tyrannus, Vieil, crinitus, Lin., 

 we use a form which, though expressing the facts correctly, and there- 

 fore not without advantage in particular cases, when great exactness is 

 required, is yet too lengthy and inconvenient to be used with ease and 

 rapidity. Of the three persons concerned with the construction of a 

 binomial title in the case before us, we conceive that the author Avho 

 first describes and names a species which forms the groundwork of later 

 generalizations, possesses a higher claim to have his name recorded than 

 he who afterward defines a genus which is found to embrace that 

 species, or who may be the mere accidental means of bringing the 

 generic and specific names into contact. By giving the authority for 

 the specific name in preference to all others, the inquirer is referred 

 directly to the original description, habitat, etc., of the species, and is at 

 the same time reminded of the date of its discovery, while genei'a being 

 less numerous than species, may be carried in the memory or referred 

 to in systematic works, without the necessity of perpetually quoting 



