108 REPORT — 1842. 



sanctioned by the approval of men of science ; and it is to the preparation of 

 these laws that the Zoological Section of the Association have been invited 

 to give their aid. 



In venturing to propose these rules for the guidance of all classes of zoolo- 

 gists in all countries, we disclaim any intention of dictating to men of science 

 the course which they may see fit to pursue. It must of course be always at 

 the option of authors to adhere to or depart from these principles, but. we 

 offer them to the candid consideration of zoologists, in the hope that they 

 may lead to sufficient uniformity of method in future to rescue the science 

 from becoming a mere chaos of words.' 



We now proceed to develope the details of our plan ; and in order to make 

 the reasons by which we are guided apparent to naturalists at large, it will be 

 requisite to append to each proposition a short explanation of the circum- 

 stances which call for it. 



Among the numerous rules for nomenclature which have been proposed by 

 naturalists, there are many which, though excellent in themselves, it is not 

 now desirable to enforce*. The cases in which those rules have been over- 

 looked or departed from, are so numerous and of such long standing, that to 

 carry these regulations into effect would undermine the edifice of zoological 

 nomenclature. But while we do not adopt these propositions as authoritative 

 laws, they may still be consulted with advantage in making such additions to 

 the language of zoology as are required by the progress of the science. By 

 adhering to sound principles of philology, we may avoid errors in future, 

 even when it is too late to remedy the past, and the language of science will 

 thus eventually assume an aspect of more classic purity than it now presents. 



Our subject hence divides itself into two parts ; the first consisting of Hides 

 for the rectification of the present zoological nomenclature, and the second of 

 Recommendations for the improvement of zoological nomenclature in future. 



PART I. 



RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE. 



[Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature.'] 

 In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent and universal 

 zoological nomenclature, it must be premised that we refer solely to the Latin 

 or systematic language of zoology. We have nothing to do with vernacular 

 appellations. One great cause of the neglect and corruption which prevails 

 in the scientific nomenclature of zoology, has been the frequent ffnd often 

 exclusive use of vernacular names in lieu of the Latin binomial designations, 

 which form the only legitimate language of systematic zoology. Let us then 

 endeavour to render perfect the Latin or Linna?an method of nomenclature, 

 which, being far removed from the scope of national vanities and modern 

 antipathies, holds out the only hope of introducing into zoology that grand 

 desideratum, an universal language. 



\_Law of Priority the only effectual and just one.] 

 It being admitted on all hands that words are only the conventional signs 

 of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its end effectually by 

 being permanently established and generally recognized. This consideration 

 ought, it would seem, to have checked those who are continually attempting 

 to subvert the established language of zoology by substituting terms of their 

 own coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist in 



* See especially the admirable code proposed in the ' PhilosopMa Botanica ' of Linnaeus. If 

 zoologists had paid more attention to the principles of that code, the present attempt at 

 reform would perhaps have been unnecessary. 



