282 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



to those which are Pre-Linnsean, and the 12th edition of the 

 " Systema Natura/' published in 1766, in which the binomial 

 system was perfected, is chosen as the limit. It is true 

 that there is some dispute concerning this matter, with 

 which we are, however, not vitally concerned at present. 



On the whole, the desirability of strict adherence to priority 

 seems to be very generally admitted, though now and again 

 we do meet with instances of disregard to this rule in cases 

 where there is really no need for uncertainty as to its 

 application.^ 



The whole principle has, however, so far as specific names 

 are concerned, been recently boldly attacked by Mr Seebohm, 

 who, in the introduction to his " History of British Birds," 

 maintains that the specific name to be adopted is not 

 necessarily that which was first proposed, but that which 

 has been oftenest used. Mr Seebohm's names are all 

 auctorum plurimorum, and, " under this system, no new 

 names can possibly be raked up and applied." 



It is impossible not to feel some amount of sympathy with 

 those who feel unwilling to cast aside a widely -known name 

 because an older one has been "raked up," or who find, 

 in the adoption of the phirimorum auctorum principle, the 

 readiest solution of all the disputes as to the identity of 

 species imperfectly or erroneously described by older writers. 

 But surely it is now time that ornithologists and other 

 specialists had arrived at some conclusions as to which of 

 the names given by those old writers, have thorough claims 

 to validity; — if not, I am not yet convinced that it is 

 Utopian to hope for such a consummation. In any case I 

 am convinced that if we lose our hold on the law of priority, 

 we shall find ourselves plunged into dangers far more serious 



^ For instance, Professor Miall of Leeds, in his work on "Sirenoids," 

 published by the Palseontographical Society in 1878, proposes to unite a 

 number of forms of Ceratodus described as distinct species by Agassiz 

 {Ceratodus altus, emarginatus, dcedaliics, etc.) into one. Now, in such a 

 case, one of Agassiz's names, the first according to strict rule, clearly has 

 priority over any which Mr Miall could devise ; but, nevertheless, on the 

 inadmissible ground that Agassiz's names are "too descriptive," he cancels 

 the whole of them, and proposes the new one iiolymorjjJius. This name 

 simply cannot be recognised. 



