44 Elliot, Truth versus Error. [j a u n k 



reading"; by "known," where the "error has been corrected by 

 the author." There are instances of utterly nonsensical words 

 now in use, where the change of one letter would cause them to 

 have an important meaning. How are we to "know" whether 

 such words are misprints, " obvious transposition of letters," or 

 misspelling " overlooked by the author?" There is no possible 

 way of ascertaining, yet Canon XL insists in maintaining them in 

 all their deformity. Among the instances available of this fact 

 that may be cited is Harelda, which means nothing, is a nonsense 

 word, but which is evidently a misprint or a misspelling for 

 Havelde (Latinized Havelda) , Scandinavian for Sea Duck. It is 

 impossible to prove whether Stephens intended to write Hard, la 

 or overlooked the error in the proof, and so there is nothing 

 " obvious " or " known " in the case, save the fact that Havelda is 

 right and Harelda is wrong, but if the backward tenets of Canon 

 XL are to be adopted we must as usual accept the wrong and 

 reject the right. Place Error always before Truth ! Of course 

 there are other nonsense words employed, even by those who 

 have no sympathy for Canon XL, such as " Dafila," also by the 

 author of " Harelda." But such words have no derivation, they 

 just " growed " like Topsy in the temporarily disordered brains of 

 those who originated them, consequently cannot be corrected and 

 are protected by the law of priority. They remain, however, as 

 monuments to the frivolousness and extremely bad taste of their 

 authors. And here, we may suppose, the Advocates of Error 

 would come forward and with ill-concealed exultation, exclaim : 

 " Well, if these nonsense words answer the purpose, why not 

 accept those, that, derived from well known Greek or Latin 

 sources, have, through the ignorance or carelessness of their 

 authors, also become nonsense words ? " Simply for two reasons. 

 — First, because a word properly spelled has a definite meaning 

 and often gives the clue to the habits of the animal it represents, 

 its general appearance, or its relationship to others ; and second, 

 because, to employ it in its debased condition, is repugnant to an 

 educated man and is a source of offense whenever met with, and 

 what is of even more importance, because it prevents the very 

 information its author desired to convey from being known. 

 There is no question that any epithet applied to a species would 



