CONSTRUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC NAMES TS PALEONTOLOGY. xiii 



In Latinizing Greek words, there are certain rules of orthography known to claasical 

 scholars which must never be departed from. For instance, the names which modern 

 authors have written Aipuknemia, ZenopJiasia, polocephala, must, according to the laws of 

 etymology, be spelt jEpycnemia, Xenophania, and ptecephala. In Latinizing modern words, 

 the rules of classic usage do not apply, and all that we can do is to give to such terms 

 as classical an appearance as we can, consistently with the preservation of their 

 etymology. In the case of European words, whose orthography is fixed, it is l>est to re- 

 tain the original form, even though it may include letters and combinations unknown in 

 Latin. Such words for instance as Woodwardi, Knighti, Bullochi, Fschscholtzi, would be 

 quite unintelligible, if they were Latinized into Vudvardi, Cnichti, Bullocci, Esaohi, etc. 

 But words of barbarous origin, having no fixed orthography, are more pliable, and hence, 

 when adopted into the Latin, they should be rendered as (^assical in appearance as is 

 consistent with the preservation of their original sound. Thus, the words Tockm, 

 awsiiree, argoondat, kundoo. etc., should, when Latinized, have been written Toccu$, amure, 

 arguTida, cundu, etc. Such words ought, in all practicable cases, to have a Latin termina- 

 tion given them, especially if they are used generically. 



This rule, with its limitations and exceptions has been not seldom 

 departed from in naming fossils. Many names have gained currency, 

 which are needlessly unclassical. At the same time, we meet with 

 marked examples of compliance. Such names as the following stand out 

 prominently — sancti ludovici^ cestriensis, are far more correct and 

 pleasing than louisi and Chester ensis^ lescuriae or leseiiri than lesquer- 

 euxi^ while Lepidophloios^ of Sternberg, should be spelled Lepido- 

 phlocus^ in accordance with Latin rather than Greek custom. 



It is almost unnecessary to add that when a new term is derived from 

 sources purely classical, care should be taken to spell it accurately, and 

 not to disguise or conceal its origin by any attempts to eliminate a letter 

 or two. This, however, has been sometimes done, as for instance, in the 

 name Stenocisma^ Conrad, (in which the etymology is masked by the 

 misspelling) and which will be found written Stenoschisma. 



f. Mythological names.— In regard to the numerous mythological 

 names, especially those given by the late palaeontologist, to the Canadian 

 Survey, Mr. E. Billings, the following recommendations of the British 

 Association deserve notice: 



d. Mythological or historical names. — When these have no perceptible reference or allu- 

 sion to the characters of the object on which they are conferred, they may be properly 

 regarded as unmeaning and in bad taste. Thus, the generic names Lesbia, Leilus, Remus, 

 Corydm, Pasiphie, have been applied to a humming-bird, a butterfly, a beetle, a parrot, and 

 a crab, respectively, without any perceptible association of ideas. But mythological 

 names may sometimes be used as generic, with the same propriety as technical ones, in 

 cases where a direct allusion can be traced between the narrated actions of a personage 

 and the observed habits or structure of an animal. Thus, when the name Pi'ogiie is 

 given to a swallow, Clotho to a spider. Hydra to a polyp, Athene to an owl, Nestor to a grey- 

 headed parrot, etc., a pleasing and beneficial connection is established between classical 

 literature and physical science. — Recommendations. 



Mr. Billings was, probably, led to adopt the practice by the increas- 

 ing difficulty of finding unpreoccupied names and an unwillingness to 

 encumber the science with more synonyms. 



