xlviii 



Hitherto we bave discussed the division of one genus into iwo or more. The con- 

 verse case, of the aggregation of two or more genera into one genus, has recently been 

 discussed (in the Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 1868) by Mr. Pascoe and Messrs. Douglas 

 and Scott. Mr, Pascoe objects to " giving new names to such genera as are formed by 

 the union of two or more genera of a preceding writer." Messrs. Douglas and Scott 

 reply that " it cannot be said with any truth that the name of a tiling should be 

 retained for another thing which is differently constituted, but of which the former 

 may be an ingredient. A chemist when he combines two or more elements does not 

 give the name of any one of them to the resulting compound ; neither can it be rightly 

 done in the labours of the naturalist." Illustrations of this sort, which are not argu- 

 ments, are often delusive, never conclusive: probably those I am about to give are as 

 much or as little so as the above illustration of my friends. But to my mind the 

 grouping together of two things under one name may be more aptly illustrated by a 

 geographical than by a chemical simile: the question is one of boundaries, not of 

 constitution or composition, or chemical amalgamation. France remains Fratice 

 notwithstanding the acquisition of a piece of Italy; Prussia remains Prussia, though 

 it has absorbed the whole of Hanover. The limits are changed, but the name is not; 

 a Nizzard is now (nominally) a Frenchman, a Hanoverian is now (nominally) a 

 Prussian ; a Parisian remains a Frenchman, a Berliner remains a Prussian. If an 

 author has established two so-called genera, A and B, and subsequent authors come to 

 the conclusion that, whilst A is a good genus, B has not sufficient distinctive characters 

 to entitle it to rank as a genus apart from A, surely the least inconvenient course is to 

 take A as the name of the whole, rather than abolish A and B, and impose a new name, 

 C And (in this case, at all events) there is no impropriety in applying name A to the 

 whole group ; the ground on which it is done being this, that B is in fact part of A, 

 and was erroneously severed from A ; it never ought to have been made a genus, and 

 the name therefore is properly sunk, when the supposed genus to which it was applied 

 is found to be untenable as a genus. On the other hand, I am quite ready to admit 

 that in other cases it may be more convenient to give a new name to the united group ; 

 England and Scotland are united into one kingdom, but it is not the kingdom of 

 England, or the kingdom of Scotland, but the kingdom of Britain. So (without any 

 insinuation that either England or Scotland could not stand alone) if an author has 

 established two so-called genera, X and Y, and subsequent authors come to the con- 

 clusion that neither X nor Y can stand alone as a genus, but yet that the two combined 

 do properly form a genus (a possible case, though scarcely a probable one), neither 

 name has any better claim to retention than the other, neither represents a genus, 

 and there seems nothing for it but to sink them both, and give a new name Z to the 

 real genus, which is then in fact for the first time indicated. — /. W. D. 



