PREFACE xix 



and all have been made into species, the Latin names of 

 which convey no intimation that they do not differ from one 

 another as much as all collectively do from the lion, tiger, 

 or leopard. We think such a system of nomenclature a 

 mistake, even from the standpoint of the pure specialists. 

 It is a case for trinomial Latin nomenclature; call the ani- 

 mals all Felis concolor (or Felis puma, or by whatever name 

 the last delver into the bibliography of the subject has dis- 

 covered was the first name mentioned in some obscure book 

 a century ago), and add hippolestes, or oregonensis, or what- 

 ever other title is necessary to show what particular regional 

 form is meant. Follow the same course with the tiger and 

 the lion. Then we shall treat, as we ought to, of the big 

 cats as lions, tigers, cougars, leopards, and can add in each 

 case where it is necessary the limiting adjectives — Man- 

 churian tiger, Masai lion, Patagonian puma — without en- 

 cumbering ourselves with such an elaborate and minutely 

 divided terminology as serves merely for the darkening of 

 wisdom. 



It would be well for ordinary purposes to adopt some- 

 what similar treatment for the word genus. It is an excel- 

 lent word when used to indicate both the resemblances of 

 different animals and their common differences from other 

 somewhat similar groups. It is highly desirable to include 

 only closely related forms in each genus. But if too much 

 split it loses much of its value. To make one genus of lions, 

 another of tigers, another of leopards, is to rob the word 

 genus of much of its value. Exactly as with species, it is 

 wise to remember that genus is a pure term of convenience. 

 In scientific treatises written by specialists for a limited 

 number of other speciaHsts, there is no possible reason for 



