2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. ']'] 



Linnaeus' Systema Naturae was not only intended to be an ex- 

 position of systematic zoology, but it was also to be what nowadays 

 we might call a check-list of names. This is perfectly plain from an 

 inspection of the very first edition of 1735. Even at that early time 

 he stressed the point that the method of nafural history consists in 

 " Divisio ac Denominatio." It has been said that in the first and the 

 second editions (1740) he only treated of the genera. That is only 

 a partial truth. The title proclaims it to be a systematic presentation 

 of the three Kingdoms of Nature by " classes, ordines, genera & 

 species," and the contents do not belie the title page. It is true that 

 only the genera are characterized, but the species are named, and 

 what is more, mostly binominally. However, they are not diagnosed, 

 so that they are what we now tmderstand by " nomina nuda," but 

 they are nomina, nevertheless. 



But whether we accept the contention of those who prefer to call 

 the plurinominal designations of the later editions " differentiae " 

 and not " nomina " is of no moment, as this argumentation is merely 

 a juggle with words. The fact is that before 1758 Linnaeus himself, 

 when he wanted to refer to a species hy name, say for instance the 

 species of the Golden Pheasant, would have to write Phasianus crista 

 iiava, pectore coccineo (Syst. Nat., Ed. 6, 1748, p. 28) and there can 

 scarcely be any doubt that this is the " Nomen selectuni; genericum 

 & speciUcum, Authoris cujusdam {si quod tale) vel propriiim " to 

 which he refers {op. cit., p. 222). Who would have the hardihood 

 to deny that Dasypus cingulis noveni or Dasypus cingidis septem were 

 names given them by Linnaeus in 1748 just as much as the names 

 Dasypus novemcinctus and D. septemcinctus bestowed upon them 

 in 1758? Moreover, such designations as Lernea lepus nmrinus, 

 Aphrodita mus marimis. Medusa urtica astrophyta {op. cit.) can 

 scarcely be referred to as " differentiae " if by that term something 

 else is meant than by "nomina." Finally, the 1748 edition is, to a 

 very great extent, binominal, though the principle is not carried 

 through consistently until the 1758 edition. To show this, it is only 

 necessary to reprint, out of many examples, his list of the species of 

 the genus Parus of 1748 (p. 32). 



83. Parus. Rostrum subulatum. 



Linguae apex truncatus, terminatus setis quattuor. 



1. Parus major. Fn. [Fauna Svecica, 1746] 238. 



2. Parus cristatus. Fn. 239. 



3. Parus caeruleus. Fn. 240. 



4. Parus ater. Fn. 241. 



5. Parus palustris. Fn. 242. 



6. Parus caudatus. Fn. 243. 



