2A.O Allen on Zoological Nomeficlature. [October 



as no line covild be drawn until we gave a separate name for each 

 individual which passed through the hands of zoologists. 



Dr. Woodwai'd, speaking from the point of conchology, could 

 mention cases in which perhaps the system would be con- 

 venient. But the additional third term would impose additional 

 labor upon the student, as was the case whenever a group was 

 broken into genera, subgenera, species, and subspecies. 



Mr. H. T. Wharton admitted the value of the trinomial system 

 when well-marked intermediate forms had to be dealt with, but 

 he would prefer to see no other names introduced unless they 

 were absolutely necessary. He called attention to the fact that 

 the method was not new, for trinomial names are to be found in 

 botanical catalogues. 



Mr. H. Saunders said that he would like to direct attention to 

 a pi-actical point in this question. "Most of those present ^vere 

 aware that there was an unpretending annual called the 'Zoologi- 

 cal Record,' which consisted now of about 800 pages, and that if 

 trinomialism were adopted, it would make the volume of two 

 great a size," 



Dr. Traquair felt convinced that were any such system to 

 receive the authoritative sanction of naturalists, its proper limits 

 would not be observed by the ordinary crowd of name-manufac- 

 turers. In fossil ichthyology he had been brought face to face with 

 the question of the definition and naming of species. Here he con- 

 ceived that the 'species' must include all those forms which can in- 

 dubitably be shown to graduate into each other. For these the only 

 practicable way seemed to be to have one generic and one specific 

 name — a binomial system — and he would leave each author 

 free to treat 'subspecies' and varieties as he pleased, but without 

 permitting him to apply any authoritative name to such. If the 

 present binomial system is abused by people who name 'species' 

 which have no existence except in their imaginations, what might 

 we not expect such writers to do if the adoption of a trinomial 

 system afforded them further scope for their faculties ! 



Mr. J. E. Harting strongly opposed the system from the oppor- 

 tunity it afforded indiscreet specialists for naming mere individual 

 variations as species, -which was already so great an evil. He 

 would agree to the recognition of climatic variations in any given 

 species when they were found to be constant and well-marked, 

 but he could not agree that the only way of recognising such 

 variations was by adding a third name to the generic and specific 



