{• xvii ) 



that Hie respective antliors of the maiuisci'ipt-iiames witc too lazy to write out 

 a description and make it public, or tbat they were not sure if the forms named 

 were really new? Is it to show that the respective authors who gave names 

 to individual specimens of one and the same species really did not know enough 

 of the thino-s they baptised? Is it to demonstrate the carelessness of the 

 respective authors who bestowed, in the collection, a name on an animal for 

 which a name had already been published ? Snrely if the authors of the names 

 had intended to publish them, we may leniently assume that they would have 

 found time to reconsider the matter before rushing into print. We should not 

 pry into the private foibles of others, and thus detract from their fame. Only 

 published matter is common property, which scientists are bound to critically 

 examine. We have seen many collections with numerous manuscrijit-names, but 

 we are glad to state that the bad habit of naming specimens in collections 

 without troubling about publishing a description is very much on the decrease — 

 at least among scientific systematists. The habit has come down to us from 

 a time when few people worked at the same group. 



There is another class of no less objectionable names which gives little credit 

 to those who are responsible for their introduction. It is a matter of self-evidence 

 that, if somebody claims credit for a discovery, he has to state what his discovery 

 is. Let us assume that A publishes a note maintaining that he has found a 

 new component of air, which he calls so-and-so, but abstains from explaining 

 what it is he has discovered. Another, B, working in the same Hue, also finds 

 a component of air, which he describes and designates with a name. Then A 

 (or one of his followers) gets up and claims priority for his name. — Another 

 case. The morphologist C aunounces that he has found in a certain group of 

 animals a new secondary sexual organ, to which he gives a name. There the 

 matter drops ; nobody can i)ossibly tell what the new organ is. Some time 

 after, several secondary sexual organs are discavered in that group, and described 

 and named. Now the knowledge of the structures has become common property 

 to scientists, somebody examines the preparations of (', and, finding that the 

 naked name published by C applies to one of these organs, maintains that 

 the name given by C should be employed for it instead of the later name, which 

 was accompanied by a proper description. 



There can be no doubt what the verdict of scientists would be in either 

 case. Science is knowledge of nature. Anything new which does not increase 

 our knowledge of nature is outside the pale of scientific work, and what we do 

 not know is not yet part of science. Facts professed to be new, and new 

 interpretations of facts, do not advance our knowledge if they are kept secret. 

 Wo know a priori that there are many facts to be discovered and new interpre- 

 tations of facts to be offered. A naked name or technical term, however, does 

 not tell us what is the nature of the conception for which the name is meant ; 

 and as long as we are left without this knowledge, the name or technical term 

 has no standing in science. Name and technical term are nothing but arbitrary 

 means which science employs as a convenient abbreviation for expositions of 



b 



