Miscellaneous. 157 
anything else. That moreover is publication, in the highest sense, 
which is found to be in universal use. If in property there is a 
statute of limitations, and a given number of years’ undisturbed 
possession is tantamount to a right, is there not the same reason for 
limiting property ina name? Why should not long-accepted La- 
marckian names be regarded as much sacred as are considered those 
of Linneeus ? 
If such are the difficulties of settling the language of the past, not 
much less are those of the present. In old times a Buccinum, a 
Bulla, a Mya, meant almost anything. In Lamarckian times, a Chi- 
ton, a Cerithium, a Pleurotoma meant what would now be called a 
family. If a writer describes under these genera, we know at least 
in what large division to search for his species. But if he describes 
a Rissoa, a Modelia, a Truncatella, we have a right to suppose he 
means what he says, and cannot be expected to look for his species 
in another suborder. If his Rissoa proves to be a Chrysallida, his 
Modelia a Lacuna, and his Truncatella a Hydrobia, is he entitled 
to priority if his successor, anxiously desirous to make out his 
species, has been compelled though necessary ignorance to redescribe ? 
Very often neither the diagnosis nor the figure represent the real 
shell. If an author, seeing one object before his eyes, which he calls 
his type, describes another, and sends a third to the Cumingian col- 
lection to represent his species, for which must his name stand? 
Does it not really belong to the ¢dea in his own mind which is em- 
bodied in his diagnosis, or (if an artist) in his figure, rather than to 
the shell which is not represented by either one or the other? A 
truthful name therefore, even though second or third in time, may 
be more useful to science than a false one given first. 
Space only allows us to point out one more difficulty in modern 
nomenclature. In old times a species (and even a genus) was sup- 
posed to be clearly defined. ‘The Darwinian theory offers a satis- 
factory explanation of some facts in nature, to many who are not 
prepared fully to accept it. very worker among large series finds 
forms which may or may not prove conspecific with others, the evi- 
dence not being as yet conclusive ; he describes these as doubtful 
?varieties. Does not the careful naming and description of a form 
establish a claim for priority, whether by succeeding writers that form 
be regarded as a variety, a species, or even a genus? 
It depends much on habit of mind whether authors prefer to work 
by large or by minute divisions. When we speak of Callista undu- 
lata, it is a matter of little consequence whether Calista be regarded 
as a subgenus of Cytherea or a separate genus, whether undulata 
be regarded as a variety of planulata or a distinct species. What 
is of consequence is, that all the scientific world should have the 
means of knowing at once what group of forms are included in Ca/- 
lista, what kind of individuals in wadulata. First, then, we need 
accurate descriptions, then these descriptions condensed into useful 
nomenclature. Science being a republic, there is no chance of even 
the forthcoming Rules of the British Association being considered 
obligatory. But many persons who will not allow themselves to be 
ruled, against what they consider a principle, may yet be brought to 
