406 Bibliographical Notices. 
As regards the question of nomenclature, the author’s views are 
not in all cases quite easy to understand, and his mode of procedure 
does not seem always uniform. Apparently he follows priority of 
date to the bitter end, as we find the little-known Alouata replacing 
the familiar Mycetes, and Cynocephalus giving way to Papio. But if 
priority is to cause the replacement of familiar names by others 
which have for years reposed in more or less deep obscurity, surely 
the preoccupation of titles is a much more serious bar to their 
employment. And yet in the Pteropide, or Pteropodide as we 
prefer to call them, we find the names Megaloglossus and Macro- 
glossus retained, although they have been shown to be preoccupied 
aud other names have been proposed in their place. On the other 
hand, Anthropopithecus replaces Trroglodytes, on account of the 
preoccupation of the latter. 
We presume the reason why Wegaloglossus and Macroglossus are 
retained is because the preoccupying names have not precisely 
the same terminations—that is to say, because they end in -glossa 
or -glossum instead of -glossus. And this leads to the question 
whether a slight difference in the spelling of what is really 
the same word—either purposely or through ignorance—admits 
of its being used for two different genera: that is to say, 
whether we may have Vastodon and Mastudus, or Megatherium and 
Megalotherium. Until quite recently it was answered in the 
negative; but a school has been started which maintains that a 
name is always to be spelt precisely as written by the proposer, 
whether correct or not; and that if an author spells a name properly 
and assigns it to one genus, a second may spell it incorrectly and 
thus keep it for another. This is virtually a confirmation of the 
views of a certain West-Indian gentleman in one of Marryat’s novels, 
who said that as individuals have peculiar styles of handwriting, 
there is no reason why they should not display idiosyncracies of 
spelling. In other words, it is the glorification of ignorance against 
education and culture. And we have heard it urged that as classical 
knowledge is likely to decrease, we cannot any more insist on classical 
accuracy in our scientific nomenclature. Our own opinion is very 
decided on the question; but it is quite time that naturalists in 
general should make up their minds once for all how the question 
is to be settled. And it is not the slightest use two or three saying 
that they will adopt such and such a plan without fwll consultation 
with all their fellow-workers. 
What may be Dr. Trouessart’s views on the question of amending 
orthography, it is quite impossible to determine. For instance, on 
page 137 we find the amended Macherodus standing for Kaup’s 
original Machairodus, while on page 248 the incorrect Atlurus 
remains in place of the amended 4Vwrus. Possibly the question is 
one of not much moment one way or the other; but when it is a 
question of adopting the amended form or maintaining the original, 
it may be supposed that all will agree in advocating a uniformity 
of practice. Classically there is no doubt that if we use Latin 
— se 
