AGASSIZ' S ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATOR. 45 



serve, like genuine synonyms, to tell the history of the genus 

 and mark the progress of our knowledge. The whole subject 

 is forcibly presented by Professor Agassiz, in another section 

 of his preface (p. xxviii et seq.}, where he states that he now 

 knows three thousand generic names common to botany and 

 zoology, which the Linnaean rule woidd require to be changed 

 in one or the other department. But surely this number must 

 comprise a host of synonyms long since laid on the shelf, as 

 well as names of somewhat different formation or termination, 

 although of the same derivation. In this case a small matter 

 should give them impunity. If these changes must be made, 

 no one could do the work for zoology better than Mr. Agassiz ; 

 but he affirms it to be a task quite beyond his power, and 

 justly concludes that, "in the present state of the science, 

 generic names ought not to be changed solely on account 

 of their being employed in both kingdoms of nature." To 

 this conclusion the American Association evidently accede. 



As to generic names doubly or triply employed in the sev- 

 eral classes of the animal kingdom (which, we are astonished 

 to learn, already number nearly ten thousand), the neces- 

 sity of applying the Linnaean canon is obvious, and would 

 be imperative had not the evil reached such a height as to 

 baffle remedy. The summum jus which demands the im- 

 mediate change of nearly a moiety of the received zoological 

 names would surely become summa injuria to the science, 

 even if any naturalist were equal to the task of applying it. 

 Justice must here be delayed in order that it may be rightly 

 administered, and, as our author recommends, the business of 

 gradually bringing this part of nomenclature under rule must 

 be left to monographers and futui*e systematists. But let 

 those upon whom the cacoethes nominandi is strong, obey 

 our author's advice, desist from proposing new names in mere 

 catalogues, and never attempt, while revising the genus which 

 rightfully claims a particular name, to impose new names 

 upon the homonymous genera in other classes, but leave that 

 for their own respective monographers. It will be soon 

 enough to give them new names, if such are needed, when 

 the validity of these several genera is well made out. 



