188 CORRESPONDENCE. 
e rules were inserted in the printed uen through the personal influence me 
Mr. Strickland, who was then a member of the Council, but they 
the sanction of the British Association. 
In the American ‘ Journal, of Science and Art,’ for March, 1864, there are 
some admirable observations on some of these rules, which entirely accord with 
my own views, and which I recommend to the consideration of the Committee. 
iti J. E. GRAY: 
eum. 
“First, we would recommend that ‘the admirable code proposed in the 
*Philosophia Botanica’ of Linnsus,—to which, ‘if zoologists had paid more 
— .the present attempt at reform would perhaps have been unne- 
cessary,' ipb Docs with indications of the rules which in the pe of time 
have become inoperative, or were from the first over-nice: e.g. , 224, 
225, 227, 228, 229, 230, etc., most of which are recommendations ihe: than 
laws. 'The British Association's Committee has properly divided its code into 
two parts :—1. Rules for rectifying the present peer 2. Recommen- 
dations for improving the nomenclature in future. The laws all resolve them- 
selves into, or are cee rre of the five ris law of priority, ‘the only 
effectual and just one." 
“cg 10. 4 name should be changed which has before been proposed for some 
other genus in zoology or botany, or for — other species in the same genus, 
when still retained for such genus or species? The first part of this rule is in- 
pem d, we presume, to be the equivalent of No. 230 of the * Philosophia Bota- 
T 
[2] 
"d 
3 
E 
.B 
á 
I 
$ 
8 
E 
d 
gen 
in zoology. It is quite enough if botanis 
cally be effected if zoologists, will see that the same pei name is used but 
— in each respective kingdom of nature. 
12. 4 name which has never been clearly defined in some published work 
po be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall have been so 
defined” Very well. And the good of science demands that unpublished de- 
scriptions, and eese names in collections, however public, should assert 
no claim as again st properly published names. But suppose the author of the 
wilful disregard of unpublished names, espécaily of those in vases or distri- 
collections, is injurious, dishonourable, and morally wrong. In the 
brotherhood of botanists, it shonid be added, custom and courtesy and scien- 
tific convenience in this respect have the practical force of law, the wilful viola- 
