Nomenclature and Priority. XXx1X 
Y 
it is a plain case. Where are we then? Why, exactly where 
we are now ; that is, depending altogether on the judgment of 
authors—on points where judgments cannot be made to agree. 
Any change of the law which provided different treatment for 
so-called ‘clear cases” would leave open the door to all the 
evils which we are suffering from now. Such an alteration 
(as I have argued in considering the proposal of M. Candéze) 
would be illusory altogether ; and, however unwelcome in one 
of its aspects the scheme may be, yet it would be the worst 
mistake to shrink from saying that nothing but a fixed limit, 
for admission — which involves a fixed limit of exclusion—can 
succeed. 
But although the scheme may appear rigorous, in point of 
fact its operation is perfectly harmless. There are no “clear” 
cases, such as excite sympathy, to be brought forward ; and 
this is the best answer to the question. Preceding list-makers 
and monographers have, in one work or another, brought up 
the “clearly” prior names and they have been already ad- 
mitted ; those we are now receiving are not the clear but 
anything but the clear instances. For the sake of uniformity 
(and indeed to prevent its whole object being frustrated) the 
rule must apply to all names, but no one need experience alarm 
that “clear” priority will suffer by it. 
If, after all that can be said, the proposal of the date 1842 
appears to those who weigh the reasons to be too sweeping, 
then by all means let us agree on some date farther back. I 
have said why I prefer the starting-point of 1842, but agree- 
ment can do anything, and I should eagerly co-operate in fixing 
even* 1800 as the limit. Those who agree with me in the 
objects desired, will, I think, if they give attention to the 
matter, bring themselves to a conclusion upon the method not 
essentially very different from the one I have expressed. ‘This 
reform could only be wrought by agreement ; and when those 
concerned meet together to form an agreement, the general 
plan would be found to admit of moulding this way or that, 
according as those who assisted might decide. 
We are occasionally told that we cannot enforce performance 
of a rule; but I think this difficulty is somewhat of a bug-bear. 
The list-makers do not agree on the names they introduce ; 
and the authority of any particular one, as well as of all 
together, is in a great degree neutralized by that circumstance. 
Then, when once we are entitled to retain the names in use I 
think that there will be little disposition to bring out the for- 
gotten names—that is, I confess I think that the agreement of 
* Tn that case it would be necessary to draw up an “Index expurgatorius” 
of the works to which no recourse for new identifications could be had, as 
the dates of a few bordering on the line of limitation cannot be clearly 
ascertained. 
