of a Type to LiniKBan Genera. 103 



the original name to any portion of it at his discretion, and 

 no later author has a right to transfer that name to any other 

 part of the original genus /^ This will bring about exactly 

 the same result ; for there is no question as to Brisson having 

 been the first to subdivide the genus. But, says the Editor 

 of ' The Ibis/ " does the rule which admits the additional Bris- 

 sonian genera give Brisson any right to define other Linnsean 

 genera? We think not." I think very difiierently. Where 

 is any limitation of Brisson's rights in regard to genera ex- 

 pressed ? His genera are brought in by a special enactment ; 

 but, once admitted, they are exactly on the same footing, to 

 stand or fall, as those of anybody else. His specific names, 

 we know, are rejected, but that is simply because he did not 

 adhere to the binomial system of nomenclature which we 

 adopt, and very rightly are they rejected. Had his book been 

 published a few years later, or had the Code enacted that the 

 10th edition of the ' Sj^stema '' should be the point of depar- 

 ture, there would have been no need to treat him exceptionally 

 as regards his genera. If the law is to be followed, it must 

 be followed in all things save such as are especially excepted ; 

 and of such excepted things there is in this case but one, the 

 matter of specific names. Why are Brisson^s privileges, 

 which, owing to his greai; merits, have been deservedly recog- 

 nized, to be pared down beyond the letter of the law ? Mr. 

 Salvin^s principle appears to me to be not only arbitrary, 

 but contrary to the principle of all law, or English law at 

 least. It is well known that any statute of disabilities has 

 to be construed in the sense most favourable to the person 

 disabled ; and if Brisson^s specific names are disallowed, the 

 disability rests there, it can have nothing to do with his 

 generic divisions and their natural consequences. 



But I am not sure that I am not here arguing needlessly. 

 I have already said that if Brisson^s book had been published 

 a few years later, there would have been no need for any ex- 

 ceptional treatment of him whatever. Now I once before 

 pointed out in this Journal (Ibis, 1865, p. 97, note) that an 

 *' edition of his work was published in 1 788 ; and being thus 

 subsequent to the appearance of Linnreus's twelfth edition^ 



