1896. RULES OF NOMENCLATURE IN ZOOLOGY. 257 



we be asked to flout an excellent scholar like Henrik Kroyer by 

 changing his Lafystius into Laphystius and worsening his Protomedeia 

 into Protomedia ? Why should we play the pedagogue to men who, 

 without happening to be scholars, may have been first-rate 

 naturalists ? Is it not an impertinence, and a useless one, to correct 

 their spelling which, as it stands, is characteristic and has a kind of 

 biographical interest ? Why, too, are we told that the termination 

 -idae in the names of zoological families is derived from the Greek 

 -etSrjs, whereas patronymics in Homer end in -x8i)s, while -eiS>/s, signifying 

 likeness, is more suggestive of a picture-gallery than a family ? 



The fourth rule says that " Names of the same origin and only 

 differing from each other in the way they are written, are to be 

 considered identical." This opens the way once more to mischievous 

 interference with established names, but the examples offered combine 

 to give it so perplexing a vagueness, that they may haply and happily 

 lead to its being cancelled. Thus, moluccensis and mohiccanus are 

 allowed to stand side by side, but Fischeria is said to be equivalent to 

 Fisheries, and yet Fischer is German, while Fisher is English, and 

 perfectly distinct genera have been designated after each of these 

 distinct surnames. 



The fifth rule permits " orthographical correction when the word 

 is without doubt wrongly written or incorrectly transcribed." From 

 among numerous examples offered, Oplophovus may be cited, which is 

 to be corrected into Hoplophorns. Can anything be more superfluous ? 

 The Latins themselves were uncertain whether H was a letter or only 

 a breathing. They fluctuated between the spelling of Adria and 

 Hadria, of Hannibal and Annibal. Why should we, then, be more 

 Roman than the Romans ? To the breathing itself it is sometimes 

 alleged that some of us pay but scant attention, even in classic 

 London, and the French, who avowedly waste little time over 

 aspirates, with much consistency give such a word as Oplophovus the 

 same initial which it has in Greek. There is nothing wrong in that, 

 and, if it were ever so wrong, what advantage is derived from inter- 

 fering ? Someone will next be telling the distinguished editor of 

 " Das Tierreich " that he does not know how to spell, and that the 

 gigantic work he is editing ought to be called " Das Thierreich." 



Rule 13 declares that a specific name is to depend gram- 

 matically upon the generic name. This implies that adjectival names 

 of species must agree with the supposed gender of the generic name. 

 It would be far simpler to regard all generic names of animals as 

 masculine, and thus rescue naturalists from the effects of a superstition 

 that in Greek and Latin all words ending in "a" are feminine. 



Rule 14 enacts "That the same specific name can only be 

 used once in the same genus," but in the small print it is explained 

 that a name which was not valid when first published, because it 

 infringed this law, may become valid by the removal of the earlier 

 species of the same name to a different genus. By this ingenious 



