Inexpediency of altering established Terms. 127 



Art. V. On the Inexpediency of altering established Terms in 

 Natural History. By Hugh Edward Strickland, Esq., F.G.S. 



It is now about two years since I published some re- 

 marks on this subject in this Magazine (Vol. VIII. p. 36.), 

 and in the Analyst (vol. ii. p. 31 7-). Those remarks were 

 directed against a practice which certain naturalists (?) had 

 commenced, of altering at their own good will and pleasure 

 numerous scientific terms, many of which had been current in 

 the republic of science for near a century. Absence from 

 England has since prevented me from recurring to the subject 

 until now. On looking over this Magazine, and the Analyst, 

 for the last year and half, I find that the lovers of confusion 

 have been hard at work, and that corresponding efforts are 

 required on the part of the true friends of science to coun- 

 teract this evil tendency. Among other papers on this 

 subject, is one in this Magazine (Vol. IX. p. 139. and 337.), 

 by a Mr. C. T. Wood, in which he attacks, in not the most 

 courteous terms, my former communications of Vol. VIII. 

 p. 36. Having a great dislike to the personalities of ordinary 

 paper warfare, it is not my intention, at present, to expose the 

 fallacies and misstatements in Mr. Wood's paper.* I will 

 merely remark that, in his zeal for improved nomenclature, 

 he might have found a more appropriate epithet for me than 

 anti-reformer. No one is more desirous of the improvement of 

 science than myself; but reform implies something more than 

 change ; and it is precisely because I do not consider that the 

 proposed changes are for the better, that I enter my protest 

 against them. On a superficial view of the case, it may cer- 

 tainly appear, that to change a less appropriate scientific 

 name for one that is more so is a change for the belter: but 

 what is the result ? If, to take the most favourable view of 

 the case, the scientific world should agree to adopt an " im- 

 proved " nomenclature, yet, even then, all our standard works 

 on natural history would become, in great measure, a dead 

 letter; every museum in the world would require to be re- 

 labeled ; and the disentanglement of synonymes (already a 

 sufficiently laborious, though necessary, duty) would be- 

 come almost hopeless. But if, as would most certainly be the 

 case, these "improved nomenclatures" should be only par- 

 tially adopted, the disentanglement of synonymes would 



* Not content with "improving" nomenclature, Mr. C. T. Wood and 

 an anonymous colleague of his (S. D. W.) try their hand at orthography 

 also, and insist upon writing Fasianus, Falaropus, nictea, Cipselus, &c, in 

 defiance of all the laws of etymology which have heen acknowledged these 

 2000 years. Such puerilities do not require further comment. 



