( XXV ) 



Tliis does away with some names {jroposed in scamped work, of wliicli science 

 would he well riti, es[)eciully with those names which are foniided on actually the 

 same material. Before a new name is introduced, the author should ascertain 

 to the best of his ability that the material for which the name is meant to 

 stand has no earlier name. This is a demaud on a describer, on the fulfilment 

 of which classitiers should rigorously insist. 



In an ideal nomenclature a name should convey to the systematist the 

 characters of the animal or its place in the system. As long as the classification 

 is not final this is not possible, and final it will most likely never be. One 

 step towards this goal was made by Linne himself when he established it as a 

 rule that an anim.al or a plant was to be designated by a generic and a specific 

 name. In Lepidoptera he tried to go even further by indicating, in the case of 

 some groups, by means of a certain ending to the specific name {-clla, -aiia, etc.), 

 to which family tlie species belonged. But this proved to be a complete failure. 

 The Linnean binominal system of nomenclature had the one great advantage 

 that, when the number of forms became larger and larger, there was no serious 

 objection to employing the same specific name in several genera. In Linnd's 

 time, when so comparatively few animals and plants were known, the generic 

 name was indeed sufficient to tell the scientist the position of the form in the 

 system. Tliis is no longer the case. By far the larger number of generic names 

 do not convey any idea to scientists, except to a few specialists who happen 

 to know them ; the family or even the order to which the genus belongs has 

 generally to be added to make clear what is meant. So far students of natural 

 science have adhered to tlie Linnean binominal system with that tenacity with 

 wliich human beings generally cling to what they have become accustomed by 

 long usage. However, a great change has taken jdace in one direction. When 

 the theory of descent threw an entirely new liglit on the forms of animated 

 nature, the study of variation became an all-important subject. That the species 

 were more or less variable was long known. But now the variability assumed 

 C|uite a different aspect. It was found that there were different kinds of variation. 

 AVhereas formerly the chief object of dassificatory research was to separate the 

 individuals into species, and group these in genera, and so on, now there were in 

 addition the several kinds of varieties to be carefully studied. For this purpose 

 a nomenclature of varieties is as necessary and as convenient a help as the Linnean 

 binominal nomenclature is to the student of species and higher categories. 



Systematists agree that the name of a species, genus, or family must be of 

 the same form, so that one recognises by the name (or rather the formula) 

 which dassificatory category of units is meant. A family name must be different 

 in form from a subfamily name, and a genus name from a non-generic name. 

 The name itself must show us whether it designates a species, a genus, a variety, 

 a family, etc. The efficiency of nomenclature would be nil if one could not see 

 from the name that Charaxes castor designates a species, Papilio a genus, 

 Ayaristidae a family, according to common agreement, Sphinx ocellata x Amorpha 

 populi a hybrid, Arascknia levami f. t. prorsa a seasonal form, etc. This is so 



