NOTES ON NAMES. 2(31 



mode of speaking ? I have heard it gravely contended, tliat 

 number of syllables and grandeur of sound gave importance 

 to names ; — alas, they simply proclaim the bad taste of the 

 name-giver ! Let me recommend to my fellow-travellers in 

 this, the most humble path of the science, to limit their new 

 names to as few syllables as possible ; two will be found, in 

 general, amply sufficient; three, however, may be considered 

 perfectly allowable ; and on rare occasions, when the name is 

 minutely descriptive, four may be pardoned : but, in all 

 instances, the name should be so compounded, that a child of 

 seven years old, with an ordinary education, might read it with 

 perfect ease. 



Long, harsh, and ill-compounded names, are generally to be 

 imputed to want of taste. There is, however, another frequent 

 fault in the naming of species, which I attribute solely to po- 

 verty of resource. I refer to the practice of giving to an 

 insect the name of its captor, with one or two i's appended 

 by way of making a genitive : — thus we have Davis-i, Hope-/, 

 and Waterhouse-?', the nominatives being Davis-?^*, Hope-w*, 

 and Waterhouse-z/*. Hundreds of names have lately been 

 given in this elegant manner. This way of latinizing names is 

 not, however, confined entirely to entomologists ; as the letters 

 W. R., standing for Williamw* Rex, in divers and sundry 

 places, abundantly testify. 



A third complaint I have to make, is, that of taking the 

 name of a species after it has been in use for years, and apply- 

 ing it to a genus or family, giving, at the same time, a new 

 name to the species. This practice invariably creates confusion. 



A fourth, and common fault in nomenclature, is that of 

 giving to a species a name of distinct meaning, yet affording 

 no possibility of our applying such meaning. I consider objec- 

 tionable, on this ground, all names denoting size, as major, 

 meclius, minor, minimus, minutus, minutissimus ; all names 

 denoting a frequency of occurrence, as communis, vulgaris, 

 vulgatus, vulgatissimus ; all names denoting similarity, as 

 similis, assimilis, confinis, cognatus, congener; all names 

 denoting the plants on which insects are accidentally found, 

 as quercus, salicis, lapathi. As instances of the faultiness of 

 these, we have in one genus a minor larger than a major ; in 

 another, a niinutissinius larger than a minutus ; a vulgatissi- 

 mus, of excessive rarity ; a quercus, that feeds on every tree 



