april,i8 9 6. RULES OF NOMENCLATURE IN ZOOLOGY. 255 



risk of confounding a tadpole with a tulip, or even the crime of 

 giving to a new protozoon a name already consecrated to a protophyte, 

 it surely cannot be worth while to fetter all zoologists again with the 

 botanical shackles from which they have shaken themselves free. 



As for that part of Rule 5 which ordains that such a name as 

 Scomber scombev Linn., should prevail over the later Scomber vulgaris 

 Fleming, let those dispute who care. It seems to be a contest 

 between Linnaeus and Strickland, between a demigod and a hero. 

 The repetition of sounds in Scomber scomber is said to be something 

 quite excruciating to the ear. Yet in the solemn anthem, musicians 

 have been known to favour such repetitions, the orator uses them, in 

 poetry they occur without offence, and even our English aristocracy 

 sometimes bears them as an added grace. 



The seventh of the German rules adopts the tenth edition of the 

 " Systema Naturae " (1758) as the starting-point of zoological nomen- 

 clature. It is late in the day to oppose this, since here again the 

 German Society is not leading opinion, but wisely following it. Sir 

 William Jardine's Committee no doubt objected to the change from 

 the twelfth to the tenth edition. They argued that the twelfth 

 was the last and most complete edition of Linnaeus's works, con- 

 taining many species not found in the tenth, and that much confusion 

 would result from the changes of names required upon an alteration of 

 the date which had been accepted for twenty-three years. If men would 

 measure time by some more adequate standard than the length of 

 their own lives, they would not attribute an overweening importance 

 to the lapse of something less than a quarter of a century. Apart 

 from this, the objection is still upheld by some important authorities 

 that it would be disrespectful to Linnaeus to adopt the tenth edition 

 of his work for our starting-point, inasmuch as in the later edition 

 he himself introduced alterations in the names employed. Now, no 

 rule is more properly and more generally accepted than this, that over 

 names once published the author has no more authority than anyone 

 else. Therefore, on the plea of reverence for Linnaeus, the adoption 

 of the twelfth in preference to the tenth edition of the " Systema " is 

 simply to hold up Linnaeus as an exemplum ad vitandum. 



Those who look with horror upon the date of 1758 must be pre- 

 pared for a further shock. Taken in an uncompromising manner, it 

 is still not early enough. Professor T. Thorell (" On European 

 Spiders," p. 8 ; 1870) says, " As regards Spiders in particular, Clerck 

 has already 1757, in his famous work ' Svenska Spindlar, Aranei 

 Suecici,' applied Linne's nomenclature in perfect consistency, and 

 accordingly the denominations given by him in that work have right of 

 priority in preference to the Linnaean." The Jardine Committee, with 

 reference to the date of 1766, make similar exceptions as to the works 

 of Artedi and Scopoli. Assuredly it would be easy to ascertain 

 whether any other writings with similar claims to those of Clerck 

 were published between the date of 1758 and that of 1751, "when 



