456 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1907. 
name, Catodon, was retained for the sperm whale, and Artedi’s Phy- 
seter mainly for the killers (Orca) ; but in 1758 Physeter was taken 
up for the sperm whale, for which it has been retained ever since, 
except by a very few naturalists. 
In 1756 and 1758 Ophidion was used for an acanthopterygian jug- 
ular fish—the common northern butterfish, or gunnell, now generally 
called Pholis—but in 1766, under the guise of Ophidium, it was 
transferred to the Apodes and primarily used for the soft-finned 
(supposedly) apodal type, which is still known as the genus Ophi- 
dium. 
Tn 1756 and 1758 Trichechus was used for the manatee alone, while 
the walrus was correctly associated with the seals, but in 1766 the 
very retrograde step was taken of associating the walrus with the 
manatee and retaining for the two the name 7richechus. Many 
naturalists persist to the present day in keeping the name for the 
walrus alone. 
The example thus set by the master was naturally followed by his 
disciples. Many felt at liberty to change names and range of genera 
as they thought best and great confusion resulted, which has con- 
tinued more or less down to this year of grace, 1907. 
Many of the evils which have been the consequence could have 
been prevented or rectified if the British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science had been logical in the code (often admirable) 
which it published in 1842. Instead, however, of accepting the edi- 
tion of the “System Nature” (tenth) in which Linné first intro- 
duced the binomial nomenclature as the starting point, they pre- 
ferred homage to an individual rather than truth to a principle, and 
insisted on the twelfth edition as the initial volume of zoological 
nomenclature. The unfortunate consequences have been manifold. 
Such consequences are the natural outcome of illogical and ill- 
considered action and must always sooner or later follow. After 
these many years almost all naturalists have acceded to the adoption 
of the tenth edition. 
2 The addition of some genera and many species in the twelfth edition marked 
an advance in that respect of Linné’s knowledge, but otherwise no firmer grasp 
of the materials on hand became manifest. On the contrary, one familiar with 
the species can scarcely fail to recognize an increase of a tendency to impatience 
in dealing with details and not seldom a snap judgment in the allocation of 
species in the genera. Indeed, under the circumstances, it would have been 
better if the last edition had never been published. No one who has not critic- 
ally examined the Systema can have an idea of the extent of discrepancy be- 
tween the generic diagnoses and contents, the duplication of species under differ- 
ent genera, the mistakes of synonymy, and other faults. It has been affirmed 
that Strickland, the chief formulator of the B. A. Code of 1842, had preferred 
the tenth edition, but was overruled by his less informed associates of the com- 
mittee on nomenclature. 
