6 Nomenclature of Zoology. 
acquainted with the objects at our door as we ourselves, espe- 
cially when we happen to live in a district which has sustained 
no naturalist before us. The actual fact is, that as a general 
thing, the natural objects peculiar to this country have been bet- 
ter known and better described abroad than at home. Certainly 
we may say this, if we except the last twenty years. Nor need 
we think that our territory has never been explored. ‘There are 
collectors constantly employed in this country by foreign natu- | 
ralists, who, in a quiet way, send across the water immense stores 
of all kinds of natural objects; and one is surprised when he sees 
the flood of such objects, collected at our doors and without our 
knowledge, in the public and private collections abroad. 
But things are now come toa different pass.. A stop will now 
be put to all baseless aspirations for notoriety by attaching nobis 
to the names of species, even when new, though not adequately 
substantiated; and more especially, by appending it to species 
created by others, in consequence of removing them to other 
genera. — 
Two things are now insisted upon in order to give authen- 
ticity to a genus or species, viz. perspicuous definition and publi- 
cation. For want of the first requisite, some of our most accom- 
plished naturalists have forfeited their claims to the adoption of 
names given by them. I need only mention the name of the 
eccentric but learned Rafinesque, to convey an idea of what I 
mean, to American zoologists. Some of the earlier descriptions | 
_ of the lamented Say, too, are so brief and indiscriminating, that 
it has been impossible, without figures or authentic specimens, 
to identify the objects intended. A rule which we have some 
where seen, that a writer should always describe an object just 
as if he expected something almost exactly like it would be 
found next day, would be all that is necessary to ensure a satisfac- 
tory compliance with the first requisition. Nor would we be un- 
derstood to say that all the works of such men are to be forfeited, 
because, in some instances, they have failed to give diagnostic¢ 
characters sufficiently perspicuous in view of subsequent discov 
eres. In regard to the species instituted by Mr. Say, such has 
been the almost uniform respect of American naturalists for him, 
that they have striven to perpetuate all his specific names; and 
where the object intended could not be indisputably determined, 
they have conventionally fixed upon some species which should 
