On EUROPEAN SPIDERS. 13 
one ought to be at liberty to amend such in other respects appropriate deno- 
minations as are in a less serious degree erroneously formed. This right — 
which is far from being universally acknowledged, although defended and used 
by several good zoologists — ought to belong not only to the person who first 
published the name, but also to every one who observes and can correct the 
error. That e. g. LATREILLE changed his Micromata to Micrommata, and 
the absurd name Clubiona lapidosa WALCK. to C. lapidicola, and that 
these latter appellations have been generally received, ought therefore to 
be approved; and in virtue of the same right we alter e. g. WALCKENAERS 
Drassus rubrens to D. rubens (as in fact MENGE and OHLERT have already 
done), his Æpeira myabora to E. myiobora, Latrodectus to Lathrodectus, Li- 
pistius to Liphistius (Astro, fords), Deinopis to Dinopis, as also it is now 
usual to write Lowia pityopsittacus, Hyponomeuta, Histiophorus, Chiromys ete. 
instead of L. pytiopsittacus, Yponomeuta, Istiophorus, Cheiromys. The right 
of making such improvements must be granted, in order to prevent the no- 
menclature of zoology from gradually assuming an appearance absolutely dis- 
gusting to a person possessing even the slenderest classical attainments. 
As long as the scientific names of animals and plants are to be Latin, we 
have a right to require that they do not sin against the simplest laws of 
that language. One is not, it is true, obliged to learn Latin and Greek in 
order to occupy oneself with Natural History: we are fully aware that a man 
may be a very distinguished naturalist without having had a classical edu- 
cation; but he who does not know sufficient Greek and Latin as to be able of 
himself to compound a scientific name for an animal or plant, might surely 
obtain the assistance of some more competent individual, if he find himself 
under the necessity of imposing a name. As most generic denominations are 
derived from the Greek, it follows, that it is principally words drawn from 
that language, that, in the process of composition and reduction to the 
Latin form, are most frequently subjected to barbarous misusage. Without 
"Nomina generica ex vocabulo græco et latino similibusque hybrida, non agno- 
scenda sunt." LINN., Phil. bot., 8 223. Conf. FABr., Phil. entom., § 18, p. 107. 
"Nomina generica ex uno vocabulo plantarum generico fracto, alio integro com- 
posita, Botanicis indigna sunt." LINN., Phil. bot., 8 224. — "Per anagramma orta non 
placent." SPRENGEL, in LINN., Phil. bot., Ed. 4, § 229. 
"Nomina barbara, que quidam in Entomologia in novissimis temporibus intro- 
duxerunt, omnino rejieienda, quum nullo modo intelligantur et diffieile pronuntientur." 
Fagr., Phil. Ent., p. 109, § 24. — LixNÉ even says that all generic names should be 
rejected, "quz a lingua græca vel latina radicem non habent" (Phil. bot., § 229), 
but he has not himself strictly adhered to this rule, and it would now be impossible 
to get it acknowledged and consistently carried out. 
