( xvi ) 



1)0 parried on liir two roasons. Firstl_v, if flioy wore flrojipod and forgotfen, 

 they would in many cases lie employed again for sometliing else, and thus land 

 ns inevitably in a muddle. Secondly, closer research often proves that what was 

 considered the same at one time is really diftereut. A form may for a long 

 time he lost sii;-ht of. Imt scientists will sooner or later become aware of the 

 oversight, if the name is kept on record. For instance, in onr case, the Hawk 

 Sloths described by Linne and Fabricins respectively as S/>h'//.r thyeJid and 

 loorhuviuf have been treated as the same for abont I'.'il years. AViien we looked 

 np the original records, we found them to refer to two widely different insects 

 belonging to dilferent genera. However, if it is granted that it is necessary, for 

 the sake of completeness of our knowledge, to keep on record all the names 

 given to forms of animals and plants, it will .also be conceded that it is an 

 nnjnstitial)le act— because it adds uiinecessfirily to the bnrden — to suppress a 

 name and r(']il.aci' it by another. 



Some of the older wriliM's did not seem to think mnrh ol' recording an 

 already named species under a new name .and treating tiie older name as a 

 synonym. Fabricius — a great and influential man in his time— set a very bad 

 exam]ile to his iiillowers not only by liis insufficient descri]>tious, but especially 

 by his arbitrary changing of names. For no reasons whatever he superseded 

 names given by Drury, Cramer, and others, by names of his own invention, and 

 employed — worst of all — the rejected names for other species, thus entiingling 

 the nomenclature to such an extent that it is difficult to find one's way through 

 the impasse. With such an example before them, one cannot wonder that 

 others followed suit. Boisdnval especially seems to have found great pleasure 

 in his names being printed. One cannot hel[i smiling when one finds him 

 coolly replace rapilin I'linhrnnr by a new name, " a:ri()ii Boisd.," and sees the 

 manuscrijit-names which he had bestowed at one time or the other upon 

 Spliirifiiilito appear in his monograph of the family under species which had 

 meanwhile been baptised by others. It may be comforting to an author who 

 comes loo late to be nevertheless able to launch his names on the scientific 

 world, but it should not be done. When Science was in its infancy, a little 

 ]ilaying like this may have been pardonable, but nowadays there is no excuse 

 whatever for jilaying .at nomenclature. " The species described by Jones as 

 eon/brmis stands in my collection under tlie name of /ixp//i/.'i mihi," or something 

 to that effect, is not only a foolish thing to publish, but is an intolerable crime, 

 which should always be met by an energetic rebnfl'. Vanity has something to 

 do with this kind of proceeding, though there is really nothing to be proud of 

 in giving a name to a si)eeimen and avoiding criticism by shunning publicity. 

 But we do not iinite understand what is the object of those who are busy 

 publishing manuscript-names which are given by others and which they find on 

 s])eeiniens in collections. As it is of no advantage whatever to science, whether 

 it becomes known or not that a bird or butterfly which has a valid name stands 

 in this or that museum under this or that manuscript-name, there must be 

 some other reason for wilfully increasing thr list of synonyms. Is it to prove 



