Nomenclature and Priority. XXV 
having the name printed in association with a weed, or a bug, 
or a bone.” * 
Strict Priority cannot settle our Nomenclature. 
It is contended that the strict application of “ priority” will 
give us certainty in nomenclature. We shall see, I think, how 
this is. 
Dr. Sharp, who (in the pamphlet already mentioned) con- 
cludes that “to abandon the rule of priority is to abandon the 
only foundation possible,’ has the following observations on 
‘*the very important point” whether a description applies to a 
species :— 
“This is a very much more difficult problem than the ascer- 
taining of a date, and it can only be properly dealt with by a 
complete consideration of the evidence in each particular case, 
and this evidence is of three kinds. Ist. The description itself 
and the complementary evidence accompanying it (such as 
locality of occurrence, statement of habit or peculiarity of 
modes of life, &e.); 2nd. Tradition; and 8rd. The existence of 
the individuals from which the description was drawn up, or of 
other individuals alleged to be authentically named. The 
evidence under the first of the heads is the most important, and 
if it be of itself satisfactory no other evidence is necessary ; if 
the description accord satisfactorily with the characters of a 
particular species, and if it be ample and well-drawn up, and 
especially if it be accompanied with a well-executed figure, the 
question is decisively settled. But if the description be so 
deficient in any or all of these points as to leave doubt in the 
opinion of a skilled or expert inquirer into these matters, the 
evidence should be sought under the other heads. And if it be 
found that scientific treatises dealing with the matter have 
declared or cited the questioned description as belonging to 
some ascertained species, and if the number and importance of 
the treatises in which this is declared be considerable, then also 
this evidence is important. As for the evidence of types, it is 
clear that this must not be exclusively or even strongly relied 
on.” fF 
And this is all! Those who expected, as I did, to derive 
assistance from Dr. Sharp’s treatise must have felt no little 
* T remarked (ante, p. xix), that in two noteworthy instances the claim 
of a “right” in the first nomenclature had been repudiated by those who 
yet favour absolute “ priority.”’” The writers referred to are Mr. Scudder 
and Dr. Sharp. The former writes (Am. Jo. Arts & Sc. 1872): “In 
systematic nomenclature the object is to register titles, not to gratify 
pride, and the names of authors are appended for convenience, not fame ; 
the question of justice or injustice has no place here.” 
Dr, Sharp (in Nature, v., 341) lays down that the author’s name placed 
after a species “should always be that of the first describer of the species ; 
not because he has any right in the matter, but as an additional means 
of certainty, and as a security against change.” 
+ Object and Method of Zoological Nomenclature, pp. 30, 31. 
