The Scottish Naturalist. 61 



Vasculares and x\cotyledonese or Cellulares. But on neither side are 

 the synonyms identical ; and the words Vasculares and Cellulares, 

 because of their historical connections, convey special meanings 

 to the instructed botanist. So, the words Exogens, Endogens, and 

 Acrogens are not really synonymous with Dicotyledons, Mono- 

 cotyledons, and Cryptogams. Besides the radical defect that, like 

 Vasculares and Cellulares, they fail to express the truth, they are 

 laden with adventitious meaning, and are retained mainly on ac- 

 count of this. 



So with the old names Infusoria and Zoophytes in Zoology ; or 

 with Cuvier's Molluscd and his Articuldta ; or, indeed, with the 

 Cuvierian terminology in general, which, when retained in 

 modern systems, has either an historical interest only, or has the 

 application entirely altered. 



It is wholly different, however, with the words that are intended 

 to be strict equivalents. In high-flown composition, aiming 

 simply at literary effect, it is often an advantage to have at com- 

 mand fine-sounding words of Greek or Latin, or other foreign 

 origin, a plain Saxon term may fail to suit the purpose : but, as 

 exactness is the object of science, there is no need for studying 

 effect here, and a multiplication of foreign or hybrid words for the 

 same thing when it can be avoided, is certainly an evil. What, 

 then, shall we say to the following doubles in botany : — 

 " loculi," and "thecae," applied indifferently to the cavities of 

 anthers ; " syngenesious," and " synantherous," signifying the same 

 thing when used of stamens ; " apocarpous," and " dialycarpous," 

 absolute synonyms in reference to pistils ; " foramen," and " mi- 

 cropyle," equivalents also in their application to the seed ? Or 

 what shall we say to the following in zoology : — " cutis," " corium," 

 and " derma," three words for the true skin, as opposed to 

 " cuticle," and "epidermis," for the scarf skin ; " omphalos," and 

 "umbilicus," for the navel; "spiracula," or "spiracles," and 

 "stigmata," for certain tracheal openings in insects? Obviously, 

 these and all similar synonyms are in the highest degree objec- 

 tionable. Two or more names for the exact same thing (especially 

 if each happen to be " sesquipedalian ") are a burden to the 

 learner, and they serve no good purpose to any one. Least of all 

 does the systematic naturalist require them ; for, dealing so much 

 in the hard and technical, as he must of necessity do, it should be 

 his endeavour not to make the uninviting still less attractive. 

 {To be continued.) 



