iSS.f.j C<>rrrsf>onc/r)ire. 3^3 



a diflicult problem. As names must be invented, it matters little wbcthcr 

 they be derived from the veinacular or a classical language, as in either 

 case thev would be new and unfamiliar and would have to be learned. 

 In point of fact, however, the vernacular tongue is a poor mint for the 

 coining of the needed terms, and recourse is naturally had to the classical 

 languages — the languages, for many reasons, ^ar excellence those of 

 science — whose resources more i-eadilj' meet the emergency. As regards 

 the names of species of animals or plants, but a small proportion are ever 

 recognized in any vernacular tongue, because unknown to the average lay- 

 man. When discovered and made known by science, a vernacular name 

 is often invented for them, as well as a scientific one. Yet many of the 

 niost remarkable and familiarly known animals and plants never acquire 

 a name other than the scientific one, compounded of Latin or Greek, 

 which the laity adopt in common with scientists, and never even dream 

 that they are using the technical language of science. Hippopotamus, 

 rhinoceros, and the names of many of our ornamental plants are cases in 

 point. The scientist easily acquires familiarity with the terms of his 

 science, even in cases where there are vernacular equivalents, and from 

 habit of thought almost unconsciously introduces them into his conversa- 

 tion or writings — often, we must say, unadvisedly and perhaps indefensibly. 



Now it happens — in many cases most unfortunately — that the same 

 animal, or the same organ, or the same condition of structure, may have 

 several names, — just as in our own vernacular we have several names for 

 the same thing, or the same bird, or, still worse, the same name for differ" 

 ent things, as is again unfortunately sometimes the case in scientific ter- 

 minology. But in case of the latter — as we have not in the other — we 

 have rules for determining which is the correct and proper term to be used' 

 especially as regards the names of animals and plants, and also for the 

 proper construction of these names. But as regards the construction of 

 names all writers are not equally skillful, and hence the desire on the part 

 of the philologically skillful to correct such names as have not been cor- 

 rectly formed. But so great has the evil of emendation itself become, that 

 the tendency is now toward the acceptance of names as originally formed, 

 unless they display an error of an obviously or known typographical char- 

 acter. So that this part of the evil is likely to eventually cure itself. 



It has happened that naturalisthave, unwittingly, repeatedly described 

 and named animals that had been named before; also the same animals 

 have been named nearly simultaneously by naturalists of different coun- 

 tries. As the same species can have only one name, and as the same 

 name cannot be used for different animals (to speak, for the sake of brev- 

 ity, in general terms) without creating great confusion and uncertainty in 

 regard to what is meant, it is necessary to have a rule by which to deter- 

 mine which name shall so be used. This rule is the rule of priority. 

 adopted by naturalists the world over. 



This rule provides that the name first given to a genus or species shall 

 be the name to which it is entitled, and by which alone it should be 

 known, subject to the single condition that it had not been used for 



I 



