310 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 



But, according to Mr. Stebbing's recent volume on Crustacea, the 

 proper scientific name of the lobster, according to the law of priority, 

 is Astacus gammarus, Leach. 



The law of priority appears to be a dead failure : it does much 

 harm and probably no good. Are there, then, any principles to guide 

 us in the use of binomial designations, or are we to come to the 

 conclusion that the binomial nomenclature is a failure ? 



One of the chief objects of scientific nomenclature is to express 

 the mutual relations of living beings. Our classification aims at 

 expressing the natural affinities of species so far as we know them ; 

 and nomenclature is the language of classification. It is mainly for 

 this reason that Latin names are wanted at all. The names "horse" 

 and "ass" imply no proposition concerning the degree of resemblance 

 between the two forms, or their degree of difference from other forms ; 

 when we call them both Equus, we imply that they both exhibit 

 certain characters which we define as generic. Since classification is 

 always changing, nomenclature must change too ; and since students 

 do not agree concerning classification, they must also hold different 

 opinions on nomenclature. Therefore, the hope of fixity or uniformity 

 in nomenclature is necessarily fallacious. But the principle that 

 follows from these considerations is that no change of names should 

 be made except as an expression of new propositions in classification. 

 But it will be said, What are we to do with synonyms ? — when there 

 are several names for one species, which are we to choose ? The 

 answer is, Choose that which is associated with what you consider the 

 most correct description and classification. For example, Homarus 

 vulgaris has been used by the latest and best authorities on the 

 systematic affinities of the lobster, and therefore should not be 

 changed. To say that this is an injustice to Leach seems to me a 

 mistake. Leach's fame or historical importance has nothing whatever 

 to do with the retention of the name he used ; and no man's fame or 

 importance can be allowed to stand in the way of scientific progress 

 or of the convenience of the investigators and students of the present 

 day. Let the dead bury their dead ! The first consideration is the 

 salvation of the living. 



It seems to me it must be recognised that the name of a species 

 has no definite and precise meaning unless accompanied by the name 

 of its authority, either expressed or implied. This is another reason 

 why the law of priority is futile and superfluous. If we write Astacus 

 gammarus, Leach, or Astacus gammarus, Stebbing, we designate the 

 lobster, and anyone who wishes to know what we mean can find out 

 by reading the definition and classification of Leach or Stebbing ; 

 but if we write Homarus vulgaris, Milne Edwards, we also indicate the 

 lobster, with the great advantage that the reader can find out much 

 more easily and completely the characters and affinities of the species 

 in question. It should be understood, therefore, that by the name of 

 the authority is meant, not necessarily the author who first gave the 



