On Random Publishing and Rules of 

 Priority/ 



AMONG invertebrates the species of insects are reckoned by 

 millions. Of crustaceans there are several thousands of 

 species. There are thousands of species also of spiders. To what- 

 ever minute subdivision of the animal kingdom zoologists turn their 

 serious attention, the record of species in it presently rises to scores 

 and hundreds. That a large proportion of these are improperly 

 founded, representing only duplicate names, casual variations, diffe- 

 rences of age and sex, or errors of the observer, may be readily 

 conceded. But with every allowance of this kind, the irreducible 

 remainder constitute an enormous multitude. For purposes of study 

 and discussion, it is essential that they should all have recognised 

 names and a place in some system of classification. In the rapid 

 advance of knowledge, system is displaced by system in quick succes- 

 sion. The monographic work designed to bring into one view all the 

 known species of a group almost invariably adds many that were 

 previously unknown. Before such a work can be printed and pub- 

 lished, the author's fellow students in several parts of the world will 

 have brought out independent contributions to the subject, thus 

 stamping the monograph with the stigma of imperfection from the 

 very moment of its birth. 



Before any comprehensive work on zoology can now be produced, 

 the naturalist finds his studies in a manner divorced from nature. 

 There is so much to read that little time is left for observing. He is 

 in a sort of bondage to an antecedent literature which cannot be 

 ignored, and which comprises often a host of sporadic writings. 

 Under existing arrangements, these scattered essays carry equal 

 authority for their definitions and descriptions of genera and species, 

 wherever, however, and in whatever language published. They may 

 be couched in Russian, Polish, or modern Greek, in Arabic or 

 Japanese. There are linguists to whom none of those languages 

 would present any difficulty, and who would say that one language was 

 as good as another and a great deal better ; but even a good linguist 

 might be daunted at hearing that some African sage had described the 



1 Read at the British Association, Oxford, 1894. 



