2G0 I April, 



regard as really distinct from Philonthns, hwt uses it only as a matter of convenience, 

 because the species registered under Philonthus are already so numerous. The first 

 species of Belomichus is given as Staphylinus hcBmorrhoidalis, the second as Phi- 

 lonthus xanthopterus, and the third (a n. sp.) as Belomichus Patesi. Compare 

 Xanthopygus (pp. 35, 125) and Xantholinus (pp. 36, 198). Viewed merely as a concise 

 mode of stating that Belomichus hcBmorrhoidalis was first described by Fabricius as 

 a Staphylimis, no objection can be made to the mode of citation or reference. But 

 I suppose Dr. Sharp means more than this, and that the mode adopted is a practical 

 carrying into effect of the doctrine propounded in his pamphlet, published in 1873, 

 on " the object and method of zoological nomenclature," in which he suggested that 

 a distinction ought to be made between the " species name " and the " classificational 

 name." The " species name " is the name originally given to it according to the 

 Linnean system, the duplex name consisting of what are commonly called the generic 

 and specific names. What the " classificational name " is, whether it is to consist of 

 two words or three, does not so clearly appear. But whatever it may be, each 

 natural object is to have two distinct scientific names : a denominator, by which it 

 is always to be spoken of ; and something else, by which it is to be known to the 

 initiated, but which is never to be mentioned as its name. To say nothing about 

 the misconception of the Linnean system which is involved in Dr. Sharp's notion of 

 the " species name," I believe zoologists have not yet become enamoured of this 

 proposed simplification of nomenclature, or of the idea of having two separate names 

 for each species, even if the classificational name do not consist of more than two 

 words. But would it not be the inevitable consequence of the introduction of such 

 a scheme that we should, in a short time, have a trinominal instead of a binominal 

 system of nomenclatvire ? In the instance in question, Staphylinus hcBmorrhoidalis 

 is the " species name ;" but classifiers have removed the insect out of Staphylinus 

 and placed in Belomichus ; the species name, if it stood alone, would mislead, for 

 standing alone it would be an assertion that this insect is a Staphylinus, and to shew 

 that it is not a Staphylimis, it becomes necessary either to substitute or to add the 

 name Belomichus. If the " species name " is retained, and it has to be shewn that 

 the insect, though called Staphylimis, is not a Staphylinvs, there seems to be no 

 alternative but to speak of the insect as Belonuchus (^Staphylimis) hamorrhoidalis ; 

 and similarly Belonuchus (Philonthus) xanthopterus — or, if preferred, the order may 

 be reversed and the insect called Staphylinus (BelonuchtisJ hcBmorrhoidalis. I believe 

 Dr. Sharp repudiates the idea of substituting a trinominal for a binominal system : 

 but his mode of dealing with the previously-described species, in the paper now under 

 review, goes far to show that such must be the result of his plan. At any rate, he 

 can only avoid that result by calling one thing by the name of another : and in truth 

 it seems to be the essence of his plan, that when we call a thing a spade, we do not 

 mean that it is a spade. And the answer to the proposal is, that it is really im- 

 possible, and if possible would be undesirable, to keep scientific nomenclature and 

 classification distinct. Now that it is agreed on all hands that the creature which 

 Scopoli mistook* for a butterfly and named Papilio macaronius is an Ascalaphus, to 

 continue to call it Papilio macaronius is not only perpetuating a blunder, but telling 

 a continuous falsehood. We may negative tlie false assertion by calling the creature 

 Ascalaphus Papilio macaronius, but this is a trinominal system : the alternative is, 

 to drop the erroneous Papilio altogether, and *ake Ascalaphus macaronius as the 



