PRINCIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 25 



desired, but it is idle to hope, and futile to attempt, the introduction of simi- 

 lar uniformity in the terminations of the names of other groups. Evidence of 

 the desirableness and of the tendency are witnessed, for example, in those 

 Cuvierian names of birds which end uniformly in -rostres / and of those 

 Huxleian divisions terminating in -nzorpha. Several zoologists have used 

 -oida, ~ecz, etc., to characterize groups of a particular grade. But such usage 

 is far from uniform or universal ; the reverse is current ; and names of 

 groups (excepting of families and subfamilies) ending indiscriminately are 

 too thoroughly ingrained in the science to be eradicated without violence to 

 the cardinal rules of nomenclature. It must suffice that names of super- 

 generic groups be held for nouns in the nominative plural. 



CANON V. Proper names of families and subfamilies take 

 the tenable name of some genus, preferably the leading one, 

 which these groups respectively contain, with change of termi- 

 nation into -idtf or -incs. When a generic name becomes a 

 synonym, a current family or subfamily name based upon such 

 generic name becomes untenable. 



REMARKS. A practice has prevailed, to some limited extent, of coining 

 names of families and subfamilies without reference to any generic name. 

 This is reprehensible ; and equally so is the practice of retaining for such 

 groups a name derived from that of a genus which belongs to another family 

 or subfamily, or which for any reason has lapsed into a synonym, or been 

 found otherwise untenable : the genus Sylvicola being untenable in Orni- 

 thology, no group of birds can be named Sylvicolidae or Sylvicolinae. 



CANON VI. Proper names of genera and subgenera are single 

 words, preferably nouns, or to be taken as such, in the nomi- 

 native singular, of no definite construction and no necessary 

 signification. 



REMARKS. All fiat relates to the grammatical or philological proprie- 

 ties, to elegance, euphony, appropriateness or the reverse, is not necessarily 

 pertinent to zoological nomenclature. A generic name is not necessarily 

 of classical origin, or even in Latin form, if only it be used as if it were a 

 Latin word, conformably with rules of nomenclature. 1 (This results from 

 Principle V.) 



1 But this concession must not be construed as giving admission to vernacular 

 names formed from a classical root, like many generic names introduced by the Cu- 

 viers, Lesson, and notably other French writers of the early part of the present cen- 

 tury. Such names have in many cases been later adopted into the science under a 

 proper classical form, and should take date only from this later introduction. 



