NOMENCLATURE. 93 



group with its definition ; and because the former always falls short of the fullness 

 of expression found in the latter, th£y cancel it without hesitation, and introduce 

 some new term which appears to them more characteristic, but which is utterly 

 unknown to the science, and is therefore devoid of all authority. If those persons 

 were to object to such names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, etc., in 

 cases where they fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or should complain 

 of the names of Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that they were devoid of meaning, 

 and should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appellations, they 

 would not act more unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they do in the case 

 before us; for, in truth, it matters not, in the least, by what conventional sound 

 we agree to designate an individual object, provided the sign to be employed be 

 stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make it pass current. Now, in 

 Zoology, no one person can subsequently claim an authority equal to that possessed 

 by the person who is the first to define a new genus or describe a new species ; and 

 hence it is that the name originally given, even though it may be inferior in point 

 of elegance or expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought as a general 

 principle to be permanently retained. To this consideration we ought to add, the 

 injustice of erasing the name originally selected by the person to whose labors we 

 owe our first knowledge of the object ; and we should reflect how much the per- 

 mission of such a practice opens a door to obscure pretenders for dragging them- 

 selves into notice at the expense of original observers." 



"The name originally given by the founder of a group, or the describer of 

 a species, should be permanently retained to the exclusion of all subsequent 

 synonyms." 



"As the number of known species which form the ground-work of zoological 

 science is always increasing, and our knowledge of their structure becomes more 

 complete, fresh generalizations continually occur to the naturalist, and the number 

 of genera and other groups requiring appellations is ever becoming more extensive. 

 It thus becomes necessary to subdivide the contents of old groups, and to make their 

 definitions continually more restricted. In carrying out this process, it is an act of 

 justice to the original author that his generic name should never be lost sight of, 

 and it is no less essential to the welfare of the science, that all which is sound in 

 its nomenclature should 'remain unaltered amid the additions which are continually 

 being made to it." 



" A generic name, when once established, should never be canceled in any 

 subsequent subdivision of the group, but retained in a restricted sense for one of the 

 constituent portions." 



" When a genus is subdivided into other genera, the original name should be 

 retained for that portion of it which exhibits in the greatest degree its essential char- 

 acters as at first defined. Authors frequently indicate this by selecting some one 

 species as a fixed point of reference, which they term the ' type of the genus.' 

 When they omit doing so, it may still in many cases be correctly inferred that the 

 first species mentioned on their list, if found accurately to agree with their definition, 

 was regarded by them as the type. A specific name or its synonyms will also often 

 serve to point out the particular species, which by implication must be regarded as 

 the original type of a genus. In such cases we are justified in restoring the name of 

 the old genus to its typical signification, even when later authors have done otherwise." 



