IV INTRODUCTION. 



synonymy and denning the range of previously known 

 species. 



And here let me say a few words about the adoption 

 of names, whether of genera or species. I would pre- 

 mise by stating that I am averse to unnecessary inno- 

 vation. All names which have been generally used, 

 and which may therefore be said to be established or 

 familiar, ought never to be changed, except for the 

 strongest reasons. To substitute new names for these 

 would be manifestly inexpedient and lead to much con- 

 fusion. Even the ground of priority is in most cases no 

 excuse for altering and unsettling the accepted nomen- 

 clature; and the attempt to revive old, obscure, and 

 long-forgotten names cannot be too strongly deprecated. 

 It is forbidden to disturb the ashes of the dead. But 

 no task is more difficult to the naturalist, or more open 

 to criticism, than the selection of names, where more 

 than one are still used by different authors for the same 

 genus or species. He has to perform the functions of 

 both judge and jury, and not only to weigh carefully 

 the evidence for and against the retention of any name 

 thus put upon its trial, but also to administer strict and 

 impartial justice, according to the laws of scientific ter- 

 minology. Besides, it must not be forgotten that the 

 nomenclature used by scientific men in other countries, 

 where many branches of natural history are cultivated 

 not less assiduously or successfully than in Great Britain, 

 does not altogether agree with ours. The utmost pains 

 ought to be taken to reconcile or lessen the difference 

 between us and them in this respect, so as to ensure as 

 much uniformity as possible. Naturalists of all coun- 

 tries are members of the great commonwealth of science, 

 and their technical language is the same. Our patriotic 

 feelings, although commendable in other matters, ought 



