December. 1910. 



KNOWLEDGE. 



469 



American carcinologist. with whom I argued the 

 matter out in Xafiiral Science. \'ol. XII., No. 74. 

 April, 1898. Now Dr. Stiles remarks, " The 

 Secretary has examined Latreille (1810> in search of 

 evidence in support of the contention which Miss 

 Rathbun states has been advanced, but he has failed 

 to find it."' The failure is remarkably like Nelson's 

 failure to see a signal \\ ith the telescope applied to 

 his blind eve. Had Dr. Stiles read my article, to 

 which his attention was called by his fellow- 

 commissioner, Dr. Hoyle, he could scarcely have 

 persuaded twelve of his colleagues to concur in an 

 opinion based on an irrelevant failure. I^atreille's 

 own writings show that he used the French word 

 '■ type "" as an equivalent of the French word 

 " exemple," and that he could have had no intention 

 bv the list in his manual of 1810 to set up what are 

 now understood as typical standards for genera. It 

 mav be urged that in this subject matter we have 

 nothing to do with an author's intention, but are 

 onlv concerned with what he actually published. 

 Those who have followed this controversy will be 

 aware that the authority of Latreille's manual was 

 invoked in order to annex the genus Aatactis for the 

 freshwater crayfish instead of the marine lobster. 

 My contention has all along been that the genus 

 Asfaciis, at one time ver\' comprehensive, was first 

 subdivided by our countryman. Dr. William Elford 

 Leach, who allotted 4 sf£TC!<s to the Common Lobster. 

 Xepliraps to the Norway Lobster, Pofaniohiiis to the 

 River Crayfish. It seems to me absurd that the 

 lobster should be deprived of its historic name 

 Asfaciis, because of the casual mention of Ashiciis 

 fiiii-iatilis in a text-book, which neither in practice 

 nor design distinguished it generically from the 

 lobster. But. if we are reall\- to be bound by casual 

 mention, the dispute can on those terms be decisively 

 settled, since Borlase, in his " Natural History of 

 Cornwall," p. 274, names " the lobster, or Astaciis 

 venis." but gives no scientific name to the crayfish, 

 onh' recording its absence from Cornish rivers. 

 Borlase's work happily was published on the first of 

 January, 1758, the veri" day on which zoologists have 

 agreed that their binominal nomenclature was born. 

 A suggestion, in itself not unattractive, has been 

 made that in the several departments of zo6log\' lists 

 of long established and familiar names should be 

 drawn up, to be guaranteed against disturbance 

 w ithout regard to anv future claims on the ground 

 of priorit\'. The proposal, however, deserves to be 

 treated w ith the greatest caution, to judge by a few- 

 examples put forward not long ago, apparently as 

 too obvious to need discussion. One of them was 

 this ver\- genus Astaciis. Could any example be 

 more fatuous : since no one has ever w ished to cancel 

 the name itself, whereas about the application of it 

 controversy is still acute ? The Commissioners w ill 

 have no enviable task, if, or when, it falls to their lot 

 to decide between names endeared to particular 

 specialists on the one hand, and on the other that 

 rule of priority which they themselves have hitherto 

 Staunchly upheld. The loss of familiar names is, 



after all. onlv a passing inconvenience, a trifling 

 matter compared with the mass of new genera and 

 species which the progress of science evolves. 



Opinion 20 decides, bya majority of Commissioners, 

 that Gronovius, in 1763. uses mononominal generic 

 names, which are so far valid, although his nomen- 

 clature is non-binomial as to species. But why drag 

 in Gronovius? If uninominal generic names are to be 

 valid in 1763. on what principle are they invalidated 

 at anv earlier date ? When did writers ever make 

 a practice of using two words for the name of a 

 genus ? Let us go back at once to .Aristotle, 

 concerningwhom Latreille writes in 1803. "Ilest facile 

 de conclure des observations d'Aristote, que son 

 asfacos est Tecrevisse de mer ou le homard."' Let 

 us sav to the carcinologist : Canst thou read Greek ? 

 If so. there is no need to trust Latreille. The 

 evidence can be read in Aristotle's '" History of 

 Animals," book 4, chapter 2, so plainly given, that 

 a reader must for very shame confess that, just as 

 the Greek philosopher called the lobster astacos, so 

 the French naturalist accepted the lobster as repre- 

 sentative species of his Astciciis. 



Opinion 17 asks the question: " Shall the Genera 

 of Weber, 1795, be accepted?" To this enquiry 

 mv answer in the negative, was fully explained in the 

 Journal of the Liiinean Society, vol. 29, p. 533, 

 April. 1905. Twehe of the Commissioners answer 

 in the affirmative with sundry qualifications. Dr. 

 Ho\le. on the other hand, very pertinently observes, 

 •■ I do not think Weber creates these genera: he 

 mereK- states that the\- are about to be created. It 

 seems to me such a case as would occur if a publisher 

 were to issue a prospectus of a forthcoming work, 

 and in a table of contents mention such a genus as 

 containing such a species." Instead of being guided 

 bv Dr. Hovle's sound common sense, the Commission 

 has encumbered itself with F. \\'eber's juvenile 

 futilitx', and tried to impose on Latreille proceedings 

 which he never contemplated. 



Opinion 16 introduces, incidentally, a very 

 interesting piece of history. The explanation is 

 given that Linnaeus followed in general the plan of 

 adopting older names unless this resulted in 

 tautonvmv. \\'ithout knowing that this plan was 

 originated bv Linnaeus himself. I have long ago 

 pointed out that it was the usage of his followers, 

 which ought not to be interfered with by an e.v post 

 facto rule. For example, Cancer cranoon of 

 Linnaeus was renamed Crangon vulgaris by 

 Fabricius, to avoid the tautonomy of Crangon 

 crangon. There was probably a practical advantage 

 in old times, when the too comprehensive genera of 

 those days were subdivided, in using well known 

 specific names for the new generic compartments. 

 Some ears may admire the jingle of Scomber scomber 

 and the like, but Linnaeus and many of his followers, 

 down at least to the time of Dana, were against it. 

 There is no propriety in our reversing their evidently 

 well considered usage, whatever regulations we may 

 think proper to make for our own guidance in the 

 future. Hoping that the long discussion of Opinion 



