Bibliography. 307 
tain that proper specific names are, ceteribus paribus, always to be 
preferred for genera in these cases, not only because they are already 
familiar, but because they are most frequently old generic names which 
may claim under the law of priority. For example, Lonicera Diervil- 
la, L.= Diervilla, Tourn.; L. Symphoricarpos, L.—= Symphoricarpos, 
Dill.; Rhamnus Paliurus, L.=Paliurus, Dod.; R. Zizyphus, L.= 
Zizyphus, Dod.; Rubus Dalibarda, L.=Dalibarda, L.; and so of 
hundreds of proper specific names which have rightly resumed. their 
generic rank. 
The next proposition of the British Committee, namely, that specific 
es, even when substantive or borrowed from persons or places, 
the aid of typography. But, as Dr. Gould has already remarked, in 
this Journal, such persons would be misled by almost anything ; and 
their own cognomen with a small initial lette 0 onder tha 
the Committee of the American Association refused to reaffirm this 
tule, as applied to proper names from we are quite sure 
into adjective conformity, by writing “* Ranunculus flammulus,” instead 
of R. Flammula, “ Thymus serpyllus’’ in place of ‘Thymus Serpylium, 
and so on. ii 
Prof. Agassiz severely condemns the proposition to restrict the names 
of families to a uniform termination in ida, and their subdivisions to 
ne@, without considering whether the words in question will receive 
that particular suffix kindly. This is quite too straight-laced, and gives 
tise to many awkward forms, or 
“ Sesquipedalia verba 
Vel nocitura sono, guttur lesura loquentis,’’ 
that no possible multiplication 
difficulties, as this new practi 
