Vol. Xtn Corrcsfoiidrnce. QI 



As an illustration of the alarming increase of the no-name series of 

 mammals, let us take Mr. Walter E. Bryant's admirable list of ' Recent 

 Additions to the North American Land Mammal Fauna' (Zoe, III, p. 

 io\) which enumerates all the new species that were described from 1884 

 to 1892. Out of 155 species and subspecies absolutely new, 85 were 

 launched upon the English-speaking world with no English names what- 

 ever, and with no names understandable to any but really good Latin 

 scholars. In other words, the 85 new species have, to about 999 persons 

 out of every looo, practically no names whatever! Now, when consider- 

 ably over one-half of the new species of our highest vertebrates are given 

 to us (I mean the 999) practically nameless, it surely is time to protest. 



Of the 85 nameless species referred to, a somewhat hurried count 

 reveals the following list of shortcomers : Merriam is responsible for 58, 

 J. A. Allen 8, — and a very, very few it is, considering the great number 

 of new species described by him— Mearns 5, True 4, Chapman 4, Miller 

 2, and Shufeldt, Bryant, Stephens and H. Allen, i each. 



From the above showing we may fairly estimate the number of addi- 

 tional christenings that are necessary amongst the 150 more new species 

 (according to Dr. Allen's figures) that have been added to our fauna since 

 the publication of Mr. Bryant's list. 



Now as to the equities in the case. The technologist may say: "But 

 we are not describing new species for the benefit of the ignorant and 

 unscientific public; and the professional zoologists of the world will find 

 our nomenclature quite suflScient." Let us see about that. 



In the first place, it is the money and the friendly interest of the unsci- 

 entific public that alone enables science to breathe the breath of life, to 

 eat, drink and have a being; for as yet the unscientific are rather in the 

 majority. It is the Tom Joneses and Bill Smiths whose bank accounts 

 "pay the freight" for Professor This and Doctor That; and are not the 

 Joneses and the Smiths entitled to some consideration in the matter of 

 published information regarding our own fauna? 



If I can read signs aright, the gap between our really scientific 

 zoologists (speaking generally) and the unscientific public, is growing 

 wider and wider, day by day. The trouble is simply that the former 

 publish so very little that the latter can understand! Zoological knowl- 

 edge is increasing tremendously — amongst the scientific few; but 

 amongst the people generally, I believe it is decreasing frightfully, in 

 spite of our museums. All of which, as the newspapers say, is 

 " important if true." 



And furthermore; in the naming and the measuring oi an animal, -Mhy 

 should 120,000,000 English speaking people ever be ignored.' Latin 

 names are only a sort of necessary evil anyway. Many of them are so 

 long and overwhelming that if a man does not want to be laughed at, or 

 accused of wanting to " show off," he must choose his hearers with care 

 before using them. Tell a newspaper managing editor that you have got 

 a Taxidea americana neglecta, and the chances are ten to one that he will 



