NOMENCLATURE. 5 
studying lists of fossils merely, can have very little idea of their true biological 
relations. This is owing to several causes, not the least of which is the unequal 
value of specific distinctions. This being so, it follows that under the present 
system of nomenclature comparisons by the percentage method are not of the 
highest order of merit; but such comparisons are still further weakened by mis- 
takes in synonymy, which not seldom serve to aggravate the erroneous impressions 
as to alleged differences in two series under consideration. What shall we say, 
for instance, to a large and important group of fossils, characteristic alike of the 
Inferior Oolite and the Lias, being referred in one case to the genus Aimberleya, 
and in the other case to the genus Hucyclus ? Nay, more, in the very collection 
where this arrangement has been adopted, the genus Amberleya is placed under the 
Turbinide, whilst the genus Hucyclus is placed under the Littorinide. Yet the 
merest tyro in Jurassic paleontology knows that Hucyclus is a name given by 
Deslongchamps to a group of shells characterised, but not fully diagnosed, by 
Morris and Lycett nearly ten years before under the name of Amberleya. 
Whichever name we adopt the genus is the same; to call it by the first name in 
the Lias, and by the second name in the Inferior Oolite, is one way of making an 
artificial gap in the geological record. Doubtless comparative lists of fossils con- 
tained many such artificial gaps. 
- NOMENCLATURE. 
Like rates and taxes, Nomenclature is a necessary evil, but out of nomenclature 
has grown that fearful incubus, Synonymy, which threatens at some time to over- 
whelm us unless the Augean stable be cleansed. It is not intended in this Mono- 
graph to attempt anything more than a kind of selective synonymy in respect to 
the species described. No single imdividual nowadays can pretend thoroughly to 
cope with synonymy. Nothing short of an international commission of experts 
can ever do this, and we may well believe that matters are hardly ripe for such a 
consummation at present. The dread of having to deal with this horrible night- 
mare makes people rather shy of undertaking molluscan paleontology, which may 
be said to suffer from this disease more than any other branch of the tree of life. 
But genuine nomenclature itself, even when free from its terrible parasite, is a 
subject full of difficulties. We are often and justly reminded that nomenclature is 
not science, and in fact many of our more philosophic biologists are rather hard 
upon nomenclature, because, as with liberty, much evil is done under its cover. 
Returning, however, to our original position that it is a necessary evil, we must 
endeavour to deal with it in a manner which we may hope will yield the most 
satisfactory results. Shall we continue to put new wine into old bottles? is the 
