NEW BRITISH SPECIES, ETC., IN 1873. 71 



of the English language, by which all redundancies were 

 to be avoided. 



Dr, Sharp, in his pamphlet, apparently discards the mono- 

 nymic system heretofore defended by him ; but he still (p. 3) 

 thinks the species name the basis of nomenclature. He 

 considers names without meaning the best, and would never 

 permit any blunder in a name, however obvious and gross, 

 to be amended, adducing as a parallel argument to that likely 

 to be used by any one correcting such blunders, viz., that 

 such correction was done to ensure permanency, the ex- 

 culpatory plea of a brigand, after cutting a man's throat, 

 that if he had not, some one else would have done it. One 

 would have thought that the idea of a skilful surgeon re- 

 moving an obnoxious facial tumour by which the subject 

 was so disfigured as to be incapable of recognition^ and 

 which, if left alone, might prejudice his existence, would 

 have, professionally, occurred to Dr. Sharp, in preference 

 to the operation of the irregular practitioner to which he 

 refers. To put the matter in another light: — the correct 

 locality being surely of as much importance as the name 

 of a species, would anyone hesitate to alter " Brittany" to 

 " Britain," or " New York" to " York," if the latter places 

 were found to be those intended? or, if "England" were 

 written " Ingland," would not everyone amend the spelling 

 of the latter word ? The matter seems too evident for serious 

 argument. 



Differing from some of Dr. Sharp's ideas on points of 

 detail, (especially from his assumption at p. 38, that we are 

 at i^resent in a position justifying us in attempting to estab- 

 lish a series of permanent names,) and thinking the main 

 idea of his work incapable of practical use, I still believe 

 that the majority of the opinions promulgated in his pamphlet 

 are, if properly taken to heart, likely to produce good results ; 



