Miscellaneoui, 157 



anything else. That moreover is publication, in the highest sense, 

 which is found to be in universal use. If in property there is a 

 statute of limitations, and a given number of years' undisturbed 



{jossession is tantamount to a right, is there not the same reason for 

 imiting property in a name ? Why should not long-accepted L«- 

 marckian names be regarded as much sacred as are considered those 

 of Linnteus ? 



If such are the difficulties of settling the language of the past, not 

 much less are those of the present. In old times a Buccinum, a 

 Bulla, a Mya, meant almost anything. In Lamarckian times, a Chi- 

 ton, a Cerithium, a Pleuroloma meant what would now be called a 

 family. If a writer describes under these genera, we know at least 

 in what large division to search for his sjiecies. But if he describes 

 a Rissoa, a Modelia, a Truncatella, we have a right to suppose he 

 means what he says, and cannot be expected to look for his species 

 in another suborder. If his Jli*soa proves to l>e a Chrytallida, his 

 Modelia a Lacuna, and his Truncatella a Ilydrobia, is he entitled 

 to priority if his successor, anxiously desirous to make out his 

 species, has been compelled though necessarr ignorance to redescribe ? 

 Very often neither the diagnosis nor the figure represent the real 

 shell. If an author, seeing one object before his eyes, which he calls 

 his type, describes another, and sends a third to the Cumingian col- 

 lection to represent his species, fer which must his name stand? 

 Does it not really belong to the idea in his own mind which is em- 

 bodied in his diagnosis, or (if an artist) in his figure, rather than to 

 the hhell which is not represented by either one or the other ? A 

 truthful name therefore, even though second or third in time, may 

 be more use/ul to science than a false one given first. 



Space only allows us to point out one more diflSculty in modem 

 nomenclature. In old times a species (and even a genus) was sup- 

 posed to be clearly defined. The Darwinian theory offers a satis- 

 factory explanation of some facts in nature, to many who are not 

 prepared fully to accept it. Every worker among large series finds 

 forms which may or may not prove conspecific with others, the evi- 

 dence not being as yet conclusive ; he describes these as doubtful 

 ? varieties. Does not the careful naming and description of a form 

 establish a claim for priority, whether by succeeding writers that form 

 he regarded as a variety, a species, or even a genus ? 



It depends much on habit of mind whether authors prefer to work 

 by large or by minute divisions. When we speak of Callista undu- 

 lata, it is a matter of little consequence whether Callitta be regarded 

 as a subgenus of Cytherea or a separate genus, whether undulata 

 be regarded as a variety of planulata or a distinct species. M hat 

 is of consequence is, that all the scientific world should have the 

 means of knowing at once what group of forms arc included in Cal- 

 li$ta, what kind of individuals in undulata. First, then, we need 

 accurate descriptions, then these descriptions condensed into useful 

 nomenclature. Science being a republic, there is no chance of even 

 the forthcoming Rules of the British Association being considered 

 obligatory. But many persons who will not allow themselves to be 

 ruled, against what they consider a principle, may yet be brought to 



