154 THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 



be obeyed if confusion is to be avoided. They are that the same 

 name must not be applied to more than one group of objects, 

 and that once a thing has a name properly applied to it it must 

 not be renamed. Yet even here we are met with a difficulty, and 

 the first rule is not held to have universal application, for all 

 modern codes agree that a plant and an animal may have the 

 same name. Thus we have a plant and an animal called 

 Orthoceras, and no confusion is likely to arise. Still, though 

 there is no rule against this, we are urged not to repeat the 

 process in future. 



In zoological nomenclature an important code was drawn up 

 some sixty years ago, known as the Stricklandian. The rules 

 devised were formally adopted by the leading British and 

 American scientific bodies, and long held unquestioned sway. 

 We need not discuss their shortcomings, but they have, to a 

 certain extent, lost universal acquiescence. 



Of late years there has been held a series of International 

 Zoological Congresses, and it was felt that it would be a valuable 

 thing if these congresses would draw up a new code, which, thus 

 having the support of zoologists the world over, would put an end 

 to confusion. Such a code has now been agreed upon, and is 

 being formally assented to by leading societies everywhere. We 

 all have our little fads, even the most open-minded of us, and I 

 may say that one of my own little fads — not my own only, of 

 course — has been objected to, and I must amend my ways. 



Space would, of course, not allow us to discuss the rules in 

 detail, but authors have no more right to disobey them than they 

 have to neglect the laws of grammar or spelling. If they expect 

 to be listened to with respect on scientific matters, the least they 

 can do is to master what is after all for the most part a simple 

 lesson. 



Just as the zoologists have drawn up a list of rules, so an 

 International Congress of Botanists has done, though I believe 

 the new rules have not yet appeared, and the old rules are still 

 being followed. 



With regard to the new rules of zoological nomenclature a few 

 points may be drawn attention to. There are thirty-six rules. 

 In addition there are attached to most of these certain " recom- 

 mendations " which it is advisable to follow, but no compulsion 

 is to be exerted in the matter. Thus the first rule says that 

 zoological nomenclature is independent of botanical, but a 

 "recommendation" says "it is well to avoid introducing into 

 zoology as generic names such names as are in use in botany." 

 As regards names and their origin, it is clearly laid down, in eft'ect, 

 that a name is a name only ; it is an indication of a certain group 

 of objects and nothing more. Our right to get names where and 

 how we choose is expressly allowed in the recommendations. 



