306 Bibliography. 
less blameworthy are those who purposely pass by, instead of courte- 
ously adopting, appropriate names under which naturalists often distri- 
heir specimens in advance of publication. This felony is the 
more atrocious, because remediless, and to be prevented by no rule ex- 
to comment upon. The writer of the British Report has chosen to en- 
h 
names, by citing as an example of the kind, the “ Enaliolimnosaurus 
crocodilocephaloides of a German naturalist ;” for which he is strongly 
censured by our author, who declares that no naturalist has ever propo- 
sed this name. Surely, if any one is inclined ‘to cast stones into his 
neighbor’s garden,” as our author says, there is no lack of legitimate 
opportunity, nor necessity for fabricating hard names. 
The British Committee condemns the future employment of generic 
names which have been superseded by the rule of priority. But this 
is contrary to the canon, § 245— Nomen genericum unius_ generis, 
nisi supervacaneum, in aliud transferri non debet,” (and to obs. under 
§ 244,) no less than to the practice of Linnzeus and of subsequent nat- 
uralists. For instance, Suururus of Plumier became a synonym © 
Piper, but this did not debar Linneus from the subsequent application 
f the name toa new genus, Sisyrinchium of Tournefort being in- 
cluded in Zris, Linneeus gave the name toa different genus ; nor did he 
hesitate to adopt the genus which Ellis had dedicated to Hales, on ac- 
count of an earlier Halesia of Browne, which had already sunk to @ 
nus? We should be careful, however, not to re-produce names which 
are likely ever to be resuscitated in their former relation. a 
The British Committee objects to the practice of giving to a genus 
the name which it bore as a species of a former genus. But, as Prof. 
Agassiz justly remarks, when a species, which proves to be the type of 
a new genus, has a good proper name already, it seems quite as ad- 
missible to take that name for the genus and make a new one for the 
species, as to coin a new generic name, since either way a new name 
must be introduced : indeed it is preferable, because such Linnéean spe- 
cies frequently are found to comprise several, hitherto confounded, no 
n i ramount claim to the specific name; e- g- CYP 
rinus Gobio, C. Leuciscus, C. Barbus, L. We go further, and main- 
