280 Proceedings of the Boycd Physical Society. 



find the Turbot designated in Willoughby's "Historia Piscium," 

 published in 1686. These were, indeed, not names in the 

 proper sense, but condensed diagnoses. It is, as we all 

 know, to Linnaeus that we owe what is known as the 

 Binomial system, according to which each kind of organism 

 receives two names, the first of which — the generic name — is 

 that of a genus or assemblage of kinds of animals or plants 

 closely resembling each other, while the individual species is 

 particularised by the second or specific name — as, for instance, 

 Pleuronectes maximtcs, the Turbot ; Pleuronectes platessa, the 

 Plaice. 



The shortness and convenience of the binomial system 

 ensured its universal adoption, but the want of agreement 

 among naturalists as to definite rules for working it out, and 

 their frequent ignorance of each other's works, contributed 

 towards a considerable amount of failure on the part of the 

 system to secure accuracy or universality. Synonymy, or 

 the fact of one species having a plurality of names applied 

 to it by different authors, grew apace, and became, as it is to 

 this day, a nuisance. Some amount of synonymy cannot 

 under any conditions be avoided; it is indeed conditioned 

 by the progress of science, which often renders necessary 

 the sub-division of old and too extensive genera, and the 

 rectification of both genera and species. But that synonymy 

 should be allowed to extend itself indefinitely and heedless 

 of all rule or principle, constituted indeed an obstacle in the 

 way of accurate scientific work. Ignorance or disregard of 

 books published in another country might indeed be expected 

 at a period when the intercourse between different nations 

 was very much more restricted than it is now, and in 

 times, too, when naturalists felt less than they do now that 

 they form a brotherhood united by ties independent of 

 political nationality; but on what principle, it might be 

 asked, did writers sometimes change also the specific names 

 of organisms when they thought proper to transfer them to 

 other genera ? and other instances might be given of the 

 arbitrary way in which names given by one writer were 

 dealt with by others coming after him. 



To endeavour to check the growth of unnecessary synonymy, 



