112 SPOLIA ZEYLANICA. 



they are forthwith abolished by a stroke of the pen, or at least the 

 stroke is not omitted. This rigorous application of an arbitrary rule, 

 which allows no latitude, leads to pedantic discussions of the utmost 

 triviality, and exposes systematic zoology to the suspicion of dilet- 

 tantism. The effect of it is to close the door to many who might 

 otherwise have been willing to enter : and the lesson which it teaches 

 is that one should respect names, but use them as seldom as possible, 

 and not pry too closelj^ into their hidden meanings, confoimding 

 zoology with philology. It is quite ])Ossible to uavent a better 

 system of nomenclature, and this will probably be done in the course 

 of another century, but it wiU be a laborious task, and moreover 

 will not help us. 



On this matter of nomenclature, it may be useful to repeat the 

 words of Professor T. H. Huxley, one of the foremost British 

 biologists of the nineteenth century. Speaking of the lobster and 

 crayfish (neither of which occurs in this country), he notes that then 

 (1880) " the recognized technical name of the crayfish is Astacus 

 iluvlatilis, that of the lobster is Homarus vulgaris. And as this 

 nomenclature is generally received, it is desirable that it should not 

 be altered. Science is cosmopolitan, and the difficulties of the study 

 of zoology would be prodigiously increased if zoologists of different 

 nationalities used different technical terms for the same thing. 

 Thus, we have a nomenclature which is exceedingly simple inprin 

 ciple and free from confusion in practice. And I may add thai 

 the less attention is paid to the original meaning of the substantive 

 and adjective terms of this binomial nomenclature the better. Very 

 good reasons for using a te#m may exist when it is first invented, 

 which lose their validity with the progress of knowledge. .Thus, 

 Astacus fluviatilis was a significant name so long as we knew of only 

 one kind of craj'fish ; but now that we are acquainted with a number 

 of kinds, all of which inhabit rivers, it is meaningless. Nevertheless, 

 as changing it would involve endless confusion, and the object of 

 nomenclature is simply to have a definite name for a definite thing, 

 nobody dreams of proposing to alter it." 



AU the same the lobster and the crayfish do not carry the same 

 technical names as they did in Professor Huxley's time. 



Of course, as has been indicated above, all this trouble, which 

 arises from a laudable attempt to control half a million natural 

 species by half a dozen strictly logical rules, will amount to nothing 

 in a hundred years' time. 



Ed. ' S. Z." 



