316 Reply to Mr. Shuckarffs Article 



Art. V. Observations in Reply to Mr. Shitclcard's Article on 

 Generic Nomenclature. By J. O. Westwood, Esq., F.L.S., &c. 



I crave a short space for a replication to Mr. Sbuckard's 

 observations (p. 248.) on generic nomenclature. This shall 

 be by way of demurrer, and as brief as possible. 



I cannot sufficiently admire the coolness with which Mr. 

 Shuckard charges me with cavilling at and attacking him 

 when I was defending myself from his attack and charge of 

 inaccuracy. His light manner of treating the matter as a 

 sorry affair, after he had made this charge of inaccuracy (as 

 though credit for accuracy was not of the slightest import- 

 ance), is equally cool. If Mr. Shuckard means to apply the 

 two passages quoted in the foot-note of p. 256. to generic 

 names, I fear that Linnaeus will be himself included in his 

 own charge of stultification, as I find a few long generic 

 names even in the Sijstema Naturce ; e. g. Tabernaemontana, 

 Chrysosplenium, Mesembryanthemum, &c. But if Mr. 

 Shuckard had studied the P/iilo.sop/iia Bota?iica, he would 

 have seen that the passage which he so politely cites in italics 

 did not apply to generic names, but that it was against a 

 sesquipedalianism of words, not of letters, in specific names, 

 that Linnaeus brought this charge; for he adds, " Horrenda 

 itaque sunt nomina specifica veterum sesquipedalia, quae 

 descriptiones loco differentiarum sistunt ; " giving examples, 

 consisting of specific names composed of between twenty and 

 thirty words, according to the old plan. 



In stating that Mr. Shuckard gave a " detailed but partial 

 account" of the matter in question, I beg to assure him and 

 your readers that I had not the least intention of charging 

 him with partiality in an objectionable sense, but that his 

 account was not complete. 



Mr. Shuckard mistakes my principle entirely. It is, that 

 the species which can be shown to have been considered as 

 the type of a genus should always be retained as such type ; 

 or, in other words, that a genus should always be typified by 

 its original type. The ill effects resulting from the neglect 

 of this principle I have sufficiently detailed ; but I have to 

 thank Mr. Shuckard for another illustration. Why, he asks, 

 are some of the old Linnaean generic names retained, and 

 others not ? Why have we Cicindela, Carabus, Cerambyx, 

 &c, and not Curculio, Buprestis, E'later, &c. ? The reason 

 is plain enough, because modern authors have neglected a 

 necessary principle. 



Of the particular illustration of this principle in the genus 

 Pemphredon, in which I have been charged with inaccuracies 



