AGASSIZ'S ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATOR. 47 



among good naturalists, we shall only notice those that Mr. 

 Agassiz criticises, or we have occasion to comment upon. The 

 writer of the British Report has chosen to enforce the direc- 

 tion, to avoid harsh and inelegant or sesquipedalian names, by 

 citing, as an example of the kind, the " Enaliolimnosaurus 

 crocodilocejyhaloides of a German naturalist ; " for which he 

 is strongly censured by our author, who declares that no nat- 

 uralist has ever proposed this name. Surely, if one is inclined 

 " to cast stones into his neighbor's garden," as our author 

 says, there is no lack of legitimate opportunity, nor necessity 

 for fabricating hard names. 



The British Committee condemns the future employment 

 of generic names which have been superseded by the rule of 

 priority. But this is contrary to the canon, § 245 — " Nomen 

 genericum unius generis, nisi supervacanetini, in aliud trans- 

 ferri non debet " (and to ohs. under § 244), no less than to 

 the practice of Linnaeus and of subsequent naturalists. For 

 instance, Saururus of Plumier became a synonym of Piper, but 

 this did not debar Linnaeus from the subsequent application 

 of the name to a new genus. Sisyrinchium of Tournefort 

 being included in Iris, Linnaeus gave the name to a different 

 genus ; nor did he hesitate to adopt the genus which Ellis 

 had dedicated to Hales, on account of an earlier Halesia of 

 Browne, which had already sunk to a synonym. Why should 

 a good name be forever tabooed in such cases, and why not, 

 if occasion offers, allow it to be remarried to a new genus ? 

 We should be careful, however, not to reproduce names which 

 are likely ever to be resuscitated in their former relation. 



The British Committee objects to the practice of giving to 

 a genus the name which it bore as a species of a former 

 genus. But, as Professor Agassiz justly remarks, when a 

 species, which proves to be the type of a new genus, has a 

 good proper name already, it seems quite as admissible to 

 take that name for the genus and make a new one for the 

 species, as to coin a new generic name, since either way a new 

 name must be introduced: indeed it is preferable, because 

 such Linnaean species frequently are found to comprise sev- 

 eral, hitherto confounded, no one of which has a paramount 



