Greek and Latin in Biological Nomenclature 3 



by Greek and Roman philosophers, and then perforce by men 

 who had at least some knowledge of Greek and Latin, deter- 

 mined irrevocably that this scientific language should be Latin, 

 immeasurably enriched by Greek derivatives. So natural and 

 complete, indeed, was this linguistic heritage from the ancients 

 and the herbalists that Linnaeus merely simplified the syntax, 

 definitised the vocabulary, and modified the use of Latin, with 

 its incorporated Greek, to obtain a great binomial system, with- 

 out which taxonomy as it is to-day would have been impossible. 

 Since Linnaeus, no botanist has questioned the right of Greek 

 and Latin to constitute the language of science. DeCandolle 

 did indeed point out the many advantages English would possess 

 as an international means of communication between scientists, 

 but it was hardly his thought that English would supplant Latin 

 as the language of taxonomy. The realization of the sugges- 

 tion, in view of the fact that biological publication is made in 

 sixteen languages, among them Russian, Magyar, and Japanese, 

 is anything but imminent. Yet, while biologists are agreed that 

 Greek and Latin shall furnish the materials for nomenclature 

 and terminology, their practice, unfortunately, is still very far 

 from uniform. Personal and vernacular terms from all possible 

 sources have increased to such an extent that nearly a sixth of 

 our present generic and specific names are derived from ver- 

 nacular tongues. The economy of time and intellectual effort 

 obtained by the use of such names is so considerable that they 

 will always appeal to the poorly prepared or indifferent descrip- 

 tive biologist. But they offend all the canons of uniformity and 

 taste, and the real taxonomist, whose -work is thorough and pains- 

 taking from the first glimpse of a new organism to the final pub- 

 lication of its name and diagnosis, will avoid them. 



The best Greek and the best Latin available are alone good 

 enough for biological nomenclature. The Greek and Latin of 

 Linnaeus were the work of no very certain hand, and should 

 not constitute the standard, when a better standard is obtain- 

 able. Linne's knowledge of word-formation in Greek was often 

 elusive, though his names are far superior as a rule to those of 

 more recent coinage. Similarly, the formations of Byzantine 



323 



