352 Rules for Rendering ilie Nomenclature of Zoology Uniform. 



should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appella- 

 tions, they would not act more uuphilosophically or inconsiderately than 

 they do in the case before us ; for, in truth, it matters not in the least 

 by what conventionrJ sound we agree to designate an individual object, 

 provided the sign to be employed be ^tamped with such an authority 

 as will suffice to make it pass current. Now, in zoology, no one person 

 can subsequently claim an authority equal to that possessed by the 

 jjerson who is the first to define a new genus or describe a new species ; 

 and hence it is that the name originally given, even though it may be 

 inferior in point of elegance or expressiveness to those subsequently 

 proposed, ought as a general principle to be permanently retained. 

 To this consideration we ought to add, the injustice of erasing the name 

 originally selected by the person to whose labors we owe our first 

 knowledge of the object ; and we should reflect how much the permis- 

 sion of such a practice opens a door to obscure pretenders for dragging 

 themselves into notice at the expense of original observers. Neither 

 can an author be permitted to alter a name which he himself has once 

 published, except in accordance with fixed and equitable laws. It is 

 well observed by Decandolle : "L'auteur meme qui a le premier etabli 

 un nom n'a pas plus qu'un autre le droit de le changer pour simple 

 cause d'irapropriete. La priorite en effet est un terme fixe, positif, que 

 n'admet rien, n'arbitraire, ne de partial. " For these reasons, we 

 have no hesitation in adopting as our fundamental maxim, the "law of 

 priority," viz. : 



§ 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group, or the 

 describer of a species, should be permanently retained, to the exclu- 

 sion of all subsequent synonyms (with the exceptions about to be 

 noticed). 



Having laid down the principle, we must next inquire into the limi- 

 tations which are found necessary in carrying it into practice. 



Not to extend to Authors older than Linnoeus. — As our subject matter 

 is strictly confined to the hinoviial system of nomenclature, or that which 

 indicates species by means of two Latin words, the one generic, the 

 other specific, and as this invaluable method originated solely with 

 Linnaeus, it is clear that, as far as species are concerned, we ought not 

 to attempt to carry back the principle of priority beyond the date of 

 the 12th edition of the " Systema Naturae." Previous to that period, 

 naturalists were wont to indicate species not by a name comprised in 

 one word, but by a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme 

 vei'bosity of which method was productive of great inconvenience. It 

 is true that one word sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, 

 but these rare cases were only binomial by accident_and not by princi- 



