AGASSIZ'S ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATOR. 43 



group or the (first) describer of a species should be perma- 

 nently retained," cannot be too firmly insisted on ; for upon 

 it rests the stability which is the most essential requisite of 

 nomenclature. Their second rule, that since " the binomial 

 nomenclature originated with Linnaeus, the law of priority is 

 not to extend to the writings of antecedent authors," restricts 

 the former too arbitrarily, and conflicts, as Professor Agassiz 

 states, both with the canons and the example of Linnaeus, not 

 less than with the conscientious practice of good naturalists 

 ever since. Linnaeus was not the founder of genera or of 

 generic nomenclature, and, " far from making new names in 

 every instance, he retained all names given by his predeces- 

 sors, provided they could be received into his system." It is 

 generally thought that Linnaeus erred by adopting, not too 

 many, but too few of the unobjectionable and well-established 

 generic names of his predecessors, such as Tournefort, etc. 

 Now when, in the natural progress of the science, a Linnaean 

 genus is resolved into two or more Tournefortian ones, for 

 instance, are the names of Tournefort to be excluded from 

 use ? In the breaking up of the Linnaean genus Lonicera, 

 had not the Diervilla and Xylosteum (and if the division 

 were to go farther, the Periclymenum and Caprifolium) of 

 Tournefort, as well as the Symphoricarpos of Dillenius, an 

 indisputable right to restoration ? Indeed Linnaeus was here 

 plainly wrong in not adopting one of these prior names for 

 the whole genus, instead of creating the new one. This, how- 

 ever, was to be submitted to ; for, as Professor Agassiz re- 

 marks, " the names sanctioned by Linnaeus are to be held as 

 established above all others. Linnaeus, for instance, received 

 very few genera of Echinodermata. Nowadays this class 

 numbers many, among which some of those founded by Klein, 

 Link and Breynius, long anterior to Linnaeus, hold their place 

 with the modern ones of Lamarck, Miiller, etc. But no one 

 now prefers that new names should be made for such genera, 

 rather than that such approved anterior ones should be 

 brought into use again. I certainly see no cause why we may 

 not call to life the names of former authors when we divide 

 the genera of Linnaeus." We think those naturalists blame- 



