﻿POWELL] 
  LAW 
  OF 
  PRIORITY. 
  t> 
  

  

  and 
  though 
  many 
  of 
  the 
  nomenclatural 
  points 
  met 
  with 
  in 
  biology 
  

   will 
  not 
  occur 
  in 
  philology, 
  some 
  of 
  them 
  do 
  occur 
  and 
  may 
  be 
  

   governed 
  by 
  the 
  same 
  rules. 
  

  

  Perhaps 
  an 
  ideal 
  nomenclature 
  in 
  biology 
  may 
  some 
  time 
  be 
  estab- 
  

   lished, 
  as 
  attempts 
  have 
  been 
  made 
  to 
  establish 
  such 
  a 
  system 
  in 
  

   chemistry; 
  and 
  possibly 
  such 
  an 
  ideal 
  system 
  may 
  eventually 
  be 
  

   established 
  in 
  philology. 
  Be 
  that 
  as 
  it 
  may, 
  the 
  time 
  has 
  not 
  yet 
  

   come 
  even 
  for 
  its 
  suggestion. 
  What 
  is 
  now 
  needed 
  is 
  a 
  rule 
  of 
  some 
  

   kind 
  leading 
  scholars 
  to 
  use 
  the 
  same 
  terms 
  for 
  the 
  same 
  things, 
  and 
  

   it 
  would 
  seem 
  to 
  matter 
  little 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  linguistic 
  stocks 
  what 
  

   the 
  nomenclature 
  is, 
  provided 
  it 
  becomes 
  denotive 
  and 
  universal. 
  

  

  In 
  treating 
  of 
  the 
  languages 
  of 
  North 
  America 
  it 
  has 
  been 
  sug- 
  

   gested 
  that 
  the 
  names 
  adopted 
  should 
  be 
  the 
  names 
  by 
  which 
  the 
  

   people 
  recognize 
  themselves, 
  but 
  this 
  is 
  a 
  rule 
  of 
  impossible 
  appli- 
  

   cation, 
  for 
  where 
  the 
  branches 
  of 
  a 
  stock 
  diverge 
  very 
  greatly 
  no 
  

   common 
  name 
  for 
  the 
  people 
  can 
  be 
  found. 
  Again, 
  it 
  has 
  been 
  sug- 
  

   gested 
  that 
  names 
  which 
  are 
  to 
  go 
  permanently 
  into 
  science 
  should 
  

   be 
  simple 
  and 
  euphonic. 
  This 
  also 
  is 
  impossible 
  of 
  application,. 
  for 
  

   simplicity 
  and 
  euphony 
  are 
  largely 
  questions 
  of 
  personal 
  taste, 
  and 
  

   he 
  who 
  has 
  studied 
  many 
  languages 
  loses 
  speedily 
  his 
  idiosyncrasies 
  

   of 
  likes 
  and 
  dislikes 
  and 
  learns 
  that 
  words 
  foreign 
  to 
  his 
  vocabulary 
  

   are 
  not 
  necessarily 
  barbaric. 
  

  

  Biologists 
  have 
  decided 
  that 
  he 
  who 
  first 
  distinctly 
  characterizes 
  

   and 
  names 
  a 
  species 
  or 
  other 
  group 
  shall 
  thereby 
  cause 
  the 
  name 
  

   thus 
  used 
  to 
  become 
  permanently 
  affixed, 
  but 
  under 
  certaiii 
  conditions 
  

   adapted 
  to 
  a 
  growing 
  science 
  which 
  is 
  continually 
  revising 
  its 
  classi- 
  

   fications. 
  This 
  law 
  of 
  priority 
  may 
  well 
  be 
  adopted 
  by 
  philologists. 
  

  

  By 
  the 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  law 
  of 
  priority 
  it 
  will 
  occasionally 
  hap- 
  

   pen 
  that 
  a 
  name 
  must 
  be 
  taken 
  which 
  is 
  not 
  wholly 
  unobjectionable 
  

   or 
  which 
  could 
  be 
  much 
  improved. 
  But 
  if 
  names 
  may 
  be 
  modified 
  

   for 
  any 
  reason, 
  the 
  extent 
  of 
  change 
  that 
  may 
  be 
  wrought 
  in 
  this 
  

   manner 
  is 
  unlimited, 
  and 
  such 
  modifications 
  would 
  ultimately 
  

   become 
  equivalent 
  to 
  the 
  introduction 
  of 
  new 
  names, 
  and 
  a 
  fixed 
  

   nomenclature 
  would 
  thereby 
  be 
  overthrown. 
  The 
  rule 
  of 
  priority 
  

   has 
  therefore 
  been 
  adopted. 
  

  

  Permanent 
  biologic 
  nomenclature 
  dates 
  from 
  the 
  time 
  of 
  Linnaeus 
  

   simply 
  because 
  this 
  great 
  naturalist 
  established 
  the 
  binominal 
  sys- 
  

   tem 
  and 
  placed 
  scientific 
  classification 
  upon 
  a 
  sound 
  and 
  enduring 
  

   basis. 
  As 
  Linnseus 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  regarded 
  as 
  the 
  founder 
  of 
  biologic 
  

   classification, 
  so 
  Gallatin 
  may 
  be 
  considered 
  the 
  founder 
  of 
  syste- 
  

   matic 
  philology 
  relating 
  to 
  the 
  North 
  American 
  Indians. 
  Before 
  

   his 
  time 
  much 
  linguistic 
  work 
  had 
  been 
  accomplished, 
  and 
  scholars 
  

   owe 
  a 
  lasting 
  debt 
  of 
  gratitude 
  to 
  Barton, 
  Adelung, 
  Pickering, 
  and 
  

   others. 
  But 
  Gallatin's 
  work 
  marks 
  an 
  era 
  in 
  American 
  linguistic 
  

   science 
  from 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  he 
  so 
  thoroughly 
  introduced 
  comparative 
  

   methods, 
  and 
  because 
  he 
  circumscribed 
  the 
  boundaries 
  of 
  many 
  

  

  