PRINCIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 35 



the adoption of the binomial form by Linnaeus, has never been set forth in 

 any satisfactory manner. If any special edition were chosen, the tenth has 

 prima facie claims for first consideration. It is as clearly binomial as any, 



and it is as consistently so To a considerable extent, in the works 



of the naturalists of Northern Europe, the tenth edition has been taken as 

 the starting-point 



" It would appear that the Committee were 'plus saint que le Pape,' since 

 they would reject names which Linnaeus himself was ready to and did adopt. 

 In this connection, Prof. Verrill (Am. Jour. Sci., July, 1869) has made some 

 judicious remarks, calling attention to the works of Pallas, and Thorell has 

 done the same for those of Clerck on the subject of spiders. 



" An apologetic paragraph, following the remarks above quoted [see last 

 foot-note] from the B. A. Committee report for 1865, inferentially admits the 

 error of 1842, but goes on and reaffirms it on the ground that confusion 

 would otherwise result. 



"It is very doubtful if much confusion would be caused by leaving the 

 question open, since half the naturalists of Europe and America have al- 

 ready adopted the tenth edition of their own motion, and the other half, or 

 a large portion of them, may not unreasonably be believed to be only held 

 back from joining the others by a desire to conform to the rules, even where 

 injudiciously framed. 



" In a large part of zoology the change would make no difference what- 

 ever, since the scientific study of such branches has begun since 1766." 



Mr. Dall's own recommendation is as follows : 



" LVIII. The scientific study of different groups, having a value 

 greater than or equal to that of a class (classis), having been begun at differ- 

 ent epochs, and the inception of that study in each group respectively being 

 usually due to some ' epoch-making' work, the students of each of the 

 respective groups as above limited may properly unite in adopting the date 

 of such work as the starting-point in nomenclature for the particular class 

 to which it refers : Provided, that (i), specific names shall in no case 

 antedate the promulgation of the Linnaean rules (Philosophia Botanica, 

 1751); that (2), until formal notice by publication of the decision of such 

 associated specialists (in such manner as may be by them determined upon) 

 shall be decisively promulgated, the adoption of the epoch or starting-point 

 recommended by the committee of the British Association in 1842, namely, 

 the twelfth edition of the * Systema Naturae ' of Linnaeus (1766), shall be 

 taken as the established epoch for all zoological nomenclature. Lastly, 

 that (3), when the determination of the epoch for any particular group as 

 above shall have been made, the decision shall be held to affect that group 

 alone, the British Association date holding good for all other groups until 

 the decision for each particular case shall have been made by the naturalists 

 interested in it, upon its own merits." 



(See also LeConte on this subject, Canad. Entom., November, 1874, PP- 

 203 seq.~) 



