517 



MISCELLANEOUS. 

 On Scientific Nomenclature. By Professor Asa Gray. 



The propositions for the improvement of zoological nomenclature 

 made to the British Association at its twelfth meeting, in 1842, by 

 an influential committee, are well known. They were essentially 

 limited to zoology mainly for the reason, which is undoubtedly true, 

 that botanical nomenclature stands in much less need of distinct 

 enactment than zoological. At the recent Newcastle meeting the 

 committee on this subject was reconstituted, and instructed "to 

 report on the changes which they may consider it desirable to make, 

 if any, in the rules of nomenclature drawn up at the instance of the 

 A ssociation by Mr. Strickland and others, with power to reprint these 

 rules, and to correspond with foreign naturalists and others on the 

 best means of insuring their general adoption." "Accordingly the 

 rules, as originally circulated, are now reprinted, and zoologists are re- 

 quested to examine them carefully, and to communicate any suggestions 

 for alteration or improvement, on or before the 1st of June, 1864." 



As most of the propositions are from their nature equally appli- 

 cable to botany, and as the new committee comprises the names of 

 four botanists, extremely well selected, it is obvious that the im- 

 provement of nomenclature of genera and species in natural history 

 in general is contemplated. We feel free, therefore, to make any 

 suggestions that may occur to us from the botanical point of view. 



First, we would recommend that " the admirable code proposed 

 in the * Philosophica Botanica ' of Linnaeus " — to which " if zoolo- 

 gists had paid more attention .... the present attempt at reform 

 would perhaps have been unnecessary" — be reprinted, with indica- 

 tions of the rules which in the lapse of time have become inoperative, 

 or were from the first over-nice {ex. gr. 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 

 229, 230, &c,, most of which are recommendations rather than laws). 

 The British Association's Committee has properly divided its code 

 into two parts, 1. Rules for rectifying the present nomenclature; 

 2. Recommendations for improving the nomenclature in future. 

 The laws all resolve themselves into, or are consequences of, the 

 fundamental law of priority, "the only effectual and just one." 



Proposing here to comment only upon the few propositions which 

 seem to us open to doubt, we venture to suggest that " § 2. The 

 binomial nomenclature having originated with Linnceus, the law of 

 priority in respect of that nomenclature is not to extend to the 

 writings of antecedent authors" is perhaps somewhat too broadly 

 stated. The essential thing done by Linnaeus in the establishment 

 of the binomial nomenclature was, that he added the specific name to 

 the generic. He also reformed genera and generic names ; but he did 

 not pretend to be the inventor or establisher of either, at least in 

 botany. This merit he assigns to Tournefort, in words which we 

 have already cited in Silliman's Journal (vol. xxv. p. 134); and he re- 

 spected accordingly the genera of Tournefort, Plumier, &c., taking 

 only the liberties which fairly pertained to him as a systematic 

 reformer. While, therefore, it is quite out of question to supersede 



