190 Observations on the 



in the same natural station. The advantages derived from the 

 succinctness and perspicuity of this mode of nomenclature are 

 strongly apparent, while the uniformity which prevails through- 

 out it, makes the language of science in which it speaks, an uni- 

 versal language. Now if it should occur, that, owing to the 

 increase of materials or of our knowledge respecting them, the 

 terms assigned to certain groups should become too vague and 

 limited in their application, with reference either to the magni- 

 tude of the group itself, or the variety of forms that enter into 

 it, — as, for instance, where an original genus receives such a 

 numerous accession of species, and such an addition of new forms, 

 as renders the name, as generick, inapplicable to them all ; — it 

 becomes a question whether we should make an alteration in the 

 terms of the nomenclature itself, or violate the principles which 

 have been established for its direction. Where the case is one 

 in which the reputation of Linnaeus is concerned, I feel no hesi- 

 tation in declaring, that the honour of that great name is more 

 effectually consulted, by adhering more strictly to his general 

 principles, than to the particular name which he may have 

 conferred on any group. Nomenclature itself is variable. From 

 its very nature it cannot remain stationary : it must be en- 

 larged to suit the increasing bulk of materials which it is meant 

 to regulate ; it must be altered to meet the more accurate infor- 

 mation of every day. But the principles which direct this art 

 never vary. Standing on the philosophical basis upon which they 

 were placed by Linnaeus, they are suited to every change of the 

 science ; in every alteration of views, in every modification of 

 knowledge, they remain the same, unchanged, unchangeable. 

 Ought it not to be the undeviating principle therefore to which 

 we should adhere, and not the inconstant name ? 



Coming then to the case immediately before us, it is admitted 

 on all sides that the vast number of species, which have latterly 

 been added to the genus Fako of Linnaeus, have rendered that 

 term as generick, and the character assigned to it, too vague and 

 indefinite for the purposes of nomenclature without some modi- 

 fication. It becomes necessary either on the one hand, to make 

 Fako a family instead of a genus, and to admit new generick 



