Classification of the Animal Kingdom, 27 



since this cannot be, we must resort to the next best substitute and use, so 

 far as may be practicable, those lauguagues that are the most widely under- 

 stood. 



In the higher institutions of education in all civilized countries, the Latin 

 and Greek languages are taught. A French, German, or Russian scholar 

 who had never acquired the English, would not understand the word " bear," 

 but ursus he would at once. There is therefore this amount of gain in re- 

 taining the use of Latin and Greek names, that our discoveries, to some extent 

 at least, will be more widely understood. Knowledge is the universal pro- 

 perty of mankind, and he who assists with the greatest effect in promoting 

 its diffusion, is the greatest benefactor of his race. 



The names employed by Naturalists in their systematic classifications 

 have not always the same meaning as those in ordinary use. Some of the 

 scientific terms are an improvement, others are not. For the animal so well 

 known in Canada, " Black Bear," is not a very distinctive appellation, be- 

 cause there are bears in Europe quite as black as the one which inhabits our 

 forests. Ursus Americanus, " the American Bear," is also somewhat 

 objectionable. It would be very proper if there were but one species in 

 America, but since there are at least three well defined species of American 

 bears, and one or two varieties, it is certainly not a good name. Ursus mari- 

 timus and Ursus ferox are both sufficiently significant, because the first 

 lives always upon the sea shore and the second is the most ferocious and 

 terrible of all bears. 



In no department of the science of Natural History have there been 

 greater difficulties to be surmounted than in that which relates to nomencla- 

 ture, or the devising of appropriate and significant names. On looking over 

 any large work, it Avill be seen that a great many of the species have had, 

 each one of them, a number of different names bestowed upon it by various 

 authors, and it often becomes a matter of great perplexity to decide which is 

 the one to be retained. 



The rule in such instances is, that the name given by the person who 

 originally or first described the species and published his description, is to 

 be adopted to the exclusion of all others. Some authors describe new species 

 of animals or fossils in so vague and unsatisfactory a manner, that it is next 

 to impossible to recognize the object by the account they furnish of its pecu- 

 liarities. Such descriptions will apply equally well to half a dozen or more 

 species, and therefore do not serve the purpose of defining clearly which was 

 intended. Difficulties of this nature are common, and many instances will be 

 pointed out hereafter. 



The necessity of using two names, the specific and generic, prevails 

 throughout all classes of the animal kingdom, both living and extinct, and 

 as our object is to make ourselves understood, we shall on all occasions where 

 practicable give the translation of the words employed. Where these have 

 been derived from the Latin or Greek, it is in general easy enough to furnish 

 such explanations, but where names of species have been framed out of the 

 names of obscure places or unknown persons, it cannot be done without 



