Propositions 7'elative to the Nomenclature of Zoologij. 259 



XXXIX. — Series of Propositions for rendering the Nomenclature of 

 Zoology uniform and permanent, being the Report of a Committee 

 for the consideration of the subject appointed by the British Asso- 



• ciationfor the Advancement ofhcience"^-. 



All persons who are conversant with the present state of Zoology must be 

 aware of the great detriment wliich the science sustains from the vagueness 

 and uncertainty of its nomenclature. We do not here refer to those diver- 

 sities of language which arise from the various methods of classification 

 adopted by different authors, and which are unavoidable in the present state 

 of our knowledge. So long as naturalists differ in the views which they are 

 disposed to take of the natural affinities of animals there will always be di- 

 versities of classification, and the only \\ay to arrive at the true system of 

 nature is to allow perfect liberty to systematists in this respect. But the evil 

 complained of is of a different character. It consists in this, that when 

 naturalists are agreed as to the characters and limits of an individual group 

 or species, they still disagree in the appellations by which they distinguish it. 

 A genus is often designated by three or four, and a species by twice that 

 number of precisely equivalent synonyms ; and in the absence of any rule on 

 the subject, the naturalist is AvhoUy at a loss what nomenclature to adopt. 

 The consequence is, that the so-called commonwealth of science is becoming 

 daily divided into independent states, kept asunder by diversities of language 

 as well as by geographical limits. If an English zoologist, for example, visits 

 the museums and converses with the professors of France, he finds that their 

 scientific language is almost as foreign to him as their vernacular. Almost 

 every specimen which he examines is labeled by a title which is unknown 

 to him, and he feels that nothing short of a continued residence in that 

 country can make him conversant with her science. If he proceeds thence 

 to Germany or Russia, he is again at a loss : bewildered everywhere amidst 

 the confusion of nomenclature, he returns in despair to his own country and 

 to the museums and books to which he is accustomed. 



If these diversities of scientific language were as deeply rooted as the ver- 

 nacular tongue of each country, it would of course be hopeless to think of 

 remedying them ; but happily this is not the case. The language of science is 

 in the mouths of comparatively few, and these few, though scattered over di- 

 stant lands, are in habits of frequent and friendly intercourse v/ith each other. 

 All that is wanted then is, that some plain and simple regulations, founded 

 on justice and sound reason, should be drawn up by a competent body of 

 persons, and then be extensively distributed thi'oughout the zoological world. 



The undivided attention of chemists, of astronomers, of anatomists, of 

 mineralogists, has been of late years devoted to fixing their respective lan- 



* From the Report of the Association for 1842, p. 105. The Committee appointed 

 by the Council, Feb. 11, 1842, consisted of the following membei-s : — Mr. Darwin, 

 Prof. Henslow, Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. Ogilby, Mr, J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. 

 H. E. Strickland (reporter), and Mr. Westwood : to whom were subsequently added 

 Messrs. Broderip, Prof. Owen, Shuckard, Waterhouse and Yarrell. The Report states 

 that an outline of the proposed rules having been drawn up, copies were sent to emi- 

 nent zoologists at home and abroad, with a request that they would favour the Com- 

 mittee with their comments ; and that many valuable suggestions had already been thus 

 obtained. — Ed. 



