304 Bibliography. 
excluded from use? In the aon 5 up of the Linnean genus Lonicera, 
had not the Diervilla and Xylosteum (and if the division were to-go 
farther, the Periclymenum and Caprifo lium) of Tournefort, as well as 
the Symphoricarpos of Dillenius, an indisputable right to restoration ? 
Indeed Linnzus was here plainly wrong in not adopting one of these 
“the names sanctioned by Linneus are to be held as 5 established above 
all others. Linneeus, for instance, received very few genera of Echin- 
odermata. Now-a-days this class numbers many, among which some 
of those founded by Klein, Link and soniye a anterior to Lin- 
nus, hold their place with the modern ones of arck, Miiller, &c. 
But no one now prefers that new names should ea made a uch 
genera, rather than that ar approved anterior ones should be brought 
into use again. I certainly see no cause why we may not po ‘ if 
the names of former authors when we divide the barn of Linnzus.’ 
We think those naturalists blameworthy who t. 
The third, fourth and fifth, of the British canons are accordant with 
of. 
intimates that their rule is a too absolute, an Bae contradictory 
to the Linnzean canon, § 244 omina Sovesiom quamdiu synonyma 
digna in promptu sunt, nova non effingend 
The tenth rule, viz. “ A name hand ae er which has before 
been roposed for some other genus in zoology or botany, or for some 
other species in the same genus, when still outhia for such genus or 
species,” is not as well worded as the equivalent Linnzean canon, § 217, 
** Nomen genericum unum ee ad diversa designanda genera as- 
ce of almost half the generic names made in recent pea In 
our opinion, while the same names ought not to be given both in zool+ 
any, the time is passed when received names are to 
changed on this account. While writers in the different departments . 
of zoology sloney alan doubly employed the same name ‘in ten thou- 
sand instances,” we must see that cases of logists an 
botanists, occupying such widely separated fields, are inevitable, at least 
until as perfect lists of zoological names shall be compiled and kept up 
as is done in botany. Besides it is now utterly impossible for any single 
naturalist, or any joint committee of botanists and zoologists to deter- 
a change of the posterior ahenue us name in the other; hence 
practical wd ae of the Linnean rule w now create tenfold 
ore confusion than it can relieve. Each well founded change of the 
sort does no more than to obviate a possible i inconvenience, while every 
needless one, in a genus of numerous species, draws after it a load 
useless synomyms, which do not serve, like genuine synonyms, to tell 
the history of the genus and mark the progress of our knowledge. The 
> subject is forcibly wrote by Prof. Agassiz, in another section 
