THE VICTORIAN NATtTRALlST. 1? 



alike, the one that has priority takes the name, and the other has 

 to be renamed. Mere convenience suggests this course. Thus, 

 the mollusc described and named Xucula tumida by Hinds is a 

 distinct species from the one to which Tenison Woods sub- 

 sequently, in ignorance of Hinds' work, applied the same name ; 

 nor, again, is either of these the shell which Phiiippi named ; so 

 that the name of our Victorian shell had to be changed. Thus 

 we see why we now speak of Tiliqua scincoides, White, instead of 

 Cyclodus gigas, Gray. 



At the beginning of the paper I mentioned a discussion that 

 took place at a recent meeting of the Chib, and, while disclaiming 

 any wish to be personal, I should like to deal with the abstract 

 question on which that discussion arose. It was, Is anyone 

 justified in publishing a manuscript name ? That is, is it right to 

 produce an animal and say, " I call this animal so-and-so, and I 

 expect that name to be received by zoologists in the meantime, 

 and later on I shall give a suitable description of it." It was 

 asserted at the meeting that it was wrong to do so. Now, leaving 

 on one side all question of laws of nomenclature, let us ask why 

 such a proceeding would be improper? The chief reason is that 

 no one but those who were at the meeting and who were from 

 their knowledge able to understand the points of difference which 

 were pointed out would know what annnal was indicated by the 

 new name. Absentees, or those unqualified persons present, 

 who later might wish to examine tiie question, would have no 

 authority to appeal to. What are the zoologists in other places 

 to do in a case of this kind ? They see the name in print and 

 dare not describe a new species till they find out what this one 

 is. The letters MS., usually attached to a manuscript name, are 

 easily dropped, and if no author's name be quoted after the 

 species, those who have not tried can have no idea of the trouble 

 a zoologist has in hunting for its earliest appearance, or the 

 disgust he feels when he finds that he has been on a wild goose 

 chase after a nomen nudum, and one of which the value is less — 

 far less — than nothing. Manuscript names are useless, but they 

 are worse. They imply that their ])otential authority is really 

 preparing a description, and other workers hold aloof, for neither 

 do the more honourable of them care to appear to snatch a 

 species, the distinctness of which has been called attention to, 

 nor do they wish to publish a description and figure and find 

 that they have been anticipated by a few short weeks. The 

 zoology of Australia, and, indeed, of other countries as well, is 

 burdened with vast lists of such names, which are in no way a 

 help to science, but heavy fetters to its progress. 



Reference has been made to the rules of nomenclature. 

 Several codes of such rules have been drawn up, differing in 

 certain minor features from one another. They derive their 



