593.91 245 



III 

 Pentacrinns : a Name and its History 



IT is the misfortune of Systematic Zoology that it combines two 

 very different studies : the study of things and the study of 

 names. The former is the more important ; but the latter is neces- 

 sary for the clear interchange of ideas. In the study of things it 

 may be useful to examine the writings of those who have gone 

 before; but, except for the sake of giving honour where honour is 

 due, or of enlivening matters by cheerful criticism, such examination 

 is not forced upon us : it may even lead us astray. The study of 

 names, however, cannot but be a study of other men's opinions as 

 transmitted to us in their writings. The former study — of things 

 or facts — is bound by no laws save those of nature and truth ; the 

 latter is circumscribed in every direction by the rules established by 

 zoologists themselves. It is no wonder if the arbitrary, man-made 

 branch of the science occasionally accords but ill with what we 

 believe to be the facts of nature. 



The rules of nomenclature are rigid, but knowledge changes, 

 and, we trust, advances. Hence a name that was proposed with a 

 definite connotation ceases to have that connotation, and may come 

 to mean almost the opposite of what its author intended. We 

 systematists know better than anyone else that these things are 

 absurd, but no better method of naming has ever been proposed. 

 Were we to make a clean sweep of all names and to start with a 

 tabula rasa, the strictest adherence to the strictest code of nomen- 

 clature could not prevent a recurrence of confusion. The sole 

 remedy is omniscience. Admitting all this, it is none the less, but 

 rather the more, our duty to protest against those who, under the 

 seductive guise of expediency, attempt to override or to evade the 

 accepted rules. Authority is a shadow, customs change, " our little 

 systems have their day," and so forth. None of these is an excuse 

 for proven error. 



These homilectics are intended to pave the way for a protest in 

 one particular instance : the misuse of the name Pentacrimts. Every 

 naturalist thinks he knows what Pcntacrinus is, but it is probable 

 that a palaeontologist and a neontologist would point to very different 

 forms as representative species ; while it is certain that what zoolo- 

 gists as a rule understand by Pentacrimis has no right to that ancient 

 title. 



