lix 
priority should extend, he has some very important observations. 
The binomial system of nomenclature was, he says, fully 
and distinctly propounded by Linneus in the ‘ Philosophia 
Botanica,’ published in 1751, and there can be no reason whatever 
why authors who adopted and systematically applied it should be 
set aside, because Linneus himself did not apply it to the whole 
animal and vegetable kingdoms till 1758. An example occurs in 
Dr. Thorell’s group, Clerck having in 1757 applied it with 
perfect consistency in his ‘ Aranea Suecici.’ His law therefore 
is enunciated as follows :—‘ that in determining the priority of a 
specific name notice should be taken only of those works in which 
the Linnean binomial nomenclature is exclusively and con- 
sistently employed.” This rule has the great advantage of being 
independent of date; it goes to the root of the matter and would 
have some very important results in the determination of 
synonymy, and I cannot but regret that it was not adopted in the 
amended British Association rules, instead of the illogical 
compromise of the 12th Ed. of the ‘Systema Nature,’ with 
exception as regards two authors, Artedi and Scopoli. An 
important complement of this simple rule is, that all writings 
published subsequently to that epoch in which that nomenclature 
has not at all or not consistently been employed, count for 
nothing. The same date, our author thinks, should apply to 
generic as to specific names, both being characteristic of the 
binomial nomenclature, and it being impossible, if we go back 
earlier, to determine what are to be considered as truly generic 
names.” 
3. Dr. Thorell would not prohibit the employment of the same 
generic name in Zoology and Botany, such a restriction being 
unnecessary, and leading to wholesale alteration and consequent 
confusion. 
4. He is a strict purist, and alters the termination of every 
name he considers to be not classically constructed. He admits 
that there is often difference of opinion on these points, but does 
not seem to consider that the consequent confusion and instability 
of nomenclature is as great an evil as classical inaccuracy. 
Our author agrees with most zoologists in rejecting the 
plan used by botanists, of giving as authority for a species the 
man who placed it in the last new genus, remarking that he is 
“unable to discover what advantages that custom can offer.” He 
