THE VICTORIAN NATURALIST. 



15 



"WHAT'S IN A NAME?" 

 By T. S. Hall. 

 ( Read before the Field Naturalists' Club of Victoria, Uth March, 1898.; 

 That some remarks on the subject of zoological nomenclature 

 would not be out of place at a meeting of the Club is, I think, in 

 the light of a recent discussion, self-evident. The subject is so 

 hedged round by custom and rule that some knowledge of it is 

 demanded of all working naturalists, and that must be my excuse 

 for bringing it before you this evening. It is not my intention to 

 go very deeply into the matter, but rather to indicate the general 

 principles on which it is decided that a certain organism should 

 bear a certain name, and, moreover, as I am somewhat in the 

 dark as to the rules which appear to govern botanical usage, I 

 shall confine myself to zoology. 



• The necessity of havmg names at all need not detain us. We 

 must be able to indicate to one another the animals we mean, 

 and we feel the necessity in everyday life, as well as in science. 

 But why do we find it advisable to use such strange names for 

 the things ? Why are we not satisfied with ordinary English ? 

 Sim|)ly to be exact. If I said I saw a bear on a gum tree, and 

 poked it with a stick, an American would have a very different 

 idea of my sanity from what an Australian would. Bear and 

 gum tree convey entirely distinct ideas to the two peoples, and 

 hence arises the necessity of using names about which no mistake 

 can be made. In order then that such an end should be 

 attained, a careful and exact description of the animal or plant to 

 which the name is to be applied is of prime importance, as with- 

 out it an animal might rejoice in as many aliases as an habitual 

 offender against the laws of his country. 



The method in use at the present day of namini^ animals is 

 known as the binary system. Every animal has two names, a 

 generic and a specific, though it is true that some authors are 

 fond of tacking varietal names on to the end of specific ones, 

 even without the addition of the syllable " var." Now, our binary 

 system is an ujigrowth ; it was evolved. In the olden times a 

 name was a brief description of some half-dozen words, and as 

 long as the number of animals known was small this method was 

 fairly satisfactory. But knowledge outgrew it, and LinnjEus 

 introduced in his botanical work the system that we now employ. 

 Then a name became a name pure and simple. If it was applic- 

 able as regards its meaning well and good ; if not, what does it 

 matter? Is every Mr. Smith a smith in reality, or does the fact 

 that Mr. Miller happens to be a barrister instead of a grinder of 

 corn confuse us ? Not at all — the name is a recognition mark, and 

 nothing more. 



This being so, why is il that the names by which animals 



