Coleopterological Notices, III. 1 1 



Now let us ask the question : Upon what foundation principle does the 

 permanence and inflexibility of our nomenclature depend ? — for no scientific 

 notation or symbol ization in any branch of human investigation can be of 

 value, which is not put beyond the power of individual opinion to alter at 

 pleasure. This question seems to be easily answerable if (1) we agree to adopt 

 the earliest properly published combination of letters intended to represent any 

 particular genus, and (2) if we formulate invariable rules for writing specific 

 names, but is apparently unanswerable under any other conditions. If a 

 writer be permitted to alter the original spelling of a generic symbol on the 

 ground of incorrect orthography, we at once dispel any hope of permanence in 

 nomenclature, and open the door to new argument and discussion which may 

 result in a subsequent author giving a third designation, based upon his own 

 conception of the hypothetical intentions of the original namer, and so on 

 without end to the ultimate destruction of all semblance of stability : for there 

 are differences of opinion as to the proper spelling of certain words in all 

 languages. 



If it be asked why the generic symbol need have no meaning in any lan- 

 guage which has ever existed, while the specific designation is required to 

 have a meaning in or through the Latin, it may be answered that it simply 

 results from the condition of nomenclature as we find it to-day. One need 

 but glance over a small portion of the great Munich Catalogue, to see that the 

 proportion of generic words of unknown or dubious etymology, is so great as 

 to give character to the whole, and to necessitate the rule that generic words 

 must simply be considered harmonious combinations. In regard to the specific 

 names, however, we can perceive at once that the proportion of words among 

 them which are devoid of meaning or withdrawn from the influence of linguistic 

 rules, is not large enough to have any weight at all. 



In view of these facts, it is quite incomprehensible how the original generic 

 symbols Breutus, Sitona, Monochamus, Leiopus, Leichenum and a host of 

 others, could have been changed as they have been. Are not the words noted 

 harmonious combinations, and, as such, are they not as much entitled to stand 

 as Brenthus, Sitones, Monohammus, Liopus, and Lichenum ? We must go 

 back to the original mode of spelling generic names before nomenclature can 

 be placed upon an absolutely stable foundation. The next catalogue similar 

 in scope to the Munich Catalogue, will be the first suitable opportunity for 

 efl'ecting this change, and it is hoped that the liberties in spelling which have 

 been proposed in the one alluded to, and which constitute its only serious 

 blemish, will not be repeated. 



Other questions involving more or less difi'erence of opinion occasionally 

 arise, as for instance whether generic names, diflfering only in termination by 

 reason of gender or derivation, as for example Oplocephala and Oplocephalus, 

 Platycerus and Platyceras, or Tylas and Tylos, should be maintained as dis- 

 tinct. As the words become shorter such difi'erences of ending constitute a 

 great part of the entire symbol. Ulus, for example, is quite a difi'erent word 

 from Ula, Ixus from Ixa, Janus from Jana, and numeroiis such resemblances 

 exist at present, but if we admit that Ulus and Ula are satisfactory as generic 



