LIFE OF FLOWER 97 



active part in describing new species (not to mention 

 sub-species, which had scarcely begun to be recognised 

 by naturalists in his day), or the redefining of generic 

 groups, and other work of this nature. Indeed, as 

 mentioned in the chapter devoted to his career at the 

 College of Surgeons, he was extremely conservative in 

 this respect, and strongly opposed to the modern 

 fondness for small generic groups, and also for changing 

 generic names which, from long association, have come 

 almost to be regarded as household words and integral 

 parts of the English language. The substitution of 

 the name Procavia, for Hyrax, the familiar title of the 

 Klip-dass, was, for instance, very repugnant to him, 

 although loyally accepted when found to be coming 

 into general use. 



As a matter of fact, so far as my information goes, 

 with the exception of certain whales and dolphins, and 

 one extinct sea-cow (Halitherium)^ Flower never named 

 a new species of animal, nor, I think, did he ever pro- 

 pose a new generic term. Indeed, so opposed was he 

 to any interference with names of the latter description 

 in general use, that when several such were replaced 

 by alternative ones in the Study of Mamma/s, it was 

 expressly stipulated by him that the responsibility for 

 such substitution should rest solely with the present 

 writer. 1 



The modern system of forming trinomials to indicate 

 the local races, or sub-species, of mammals (as exempli- 

 fied by Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi and Giraffa 

 camelopardalis capensis for two of the local phases of 



1 An American writer has recently attributed, quite unjustifiably, the 

 names in question to Flower. 

 G 



