Feb. I, 1872J 



NATURE 



265 



agencies that the unmodified form of the same species, 

 but better than other rival organisms that may be its 

 competitors in the struggle for existence. 



I make these remarks without any desire to press the 

 conclusion to an extreme length. I am not one of those 

 more Darwinian than Mr. Darwin himself, who believe 

 that the theory of Natural Selection explains everything, 

 and has left no mysteries unsolved. I feel no doubt but 

 that very many modifications arise that do not perpetuate 

 themselves by the survival of a sufficient number of simi- 

 larly modified individuals, e\en in cases where the varia- 

 tion may be slightly favourable ; but I cannot admit the 

 validity of an argument that goes to the very root of the 

 principle of Natural Selection, and leads, by the appear- 

 ance of exact reasoning, to a result that every naturahst 

 feels to be absurd. 



In truth, it is impossible to assign any limit to the 

 amount of probability in favour of the preservation of a 

 new variety. In the absence of disturbing causes affect- 

 ing the equilibrium which the conditions hitherto existing 

 in a given region tend to establish between the numbers 

 of each species, it may be safe to assume that the proba- 

 bility of any new variety establishing itself is but small. 

 But let that equilibrium be disturbed — let some hitherto 

 unknown plants spread widely, as so many European 

 weeds have done in Australia. This must lead to a cor- 

 responding diminution in the number of individuals of 

 the previous vegetable inhabitants of the country, and a 

 corresponding reduction among the animals that fed upon 

 them. Let one of these animals be modified so as to be 

 able to derive nourishment from the intrusive species. 

 Is it not evident that the chance of its survival, and that 

 of its similarly modified descendants, would be so great 

 as to approach to certainty, unless the modification hap- 

 pened to bring with it other counterbalancing disadvan- 

 tages,' John B.\ll 



THE USE AND ABUSE OF COMPLIMENTARY 

 NAMES 



'T~'HOSE whose fortune it is to work in some particular 

 -•■ branch of science which has not been by any means 

 exhausted, and to encounter daily some nev/ form from an 

 unexplored region which seems to warrant recognition 

 as a new species, are often in difficulty to obtain a 

 suitable name, one which shall distinguish the new species 

 from its congeners, or give indication of one of its most 

 prominent characteristics. It would seem that some (I 

 fear many) are not so fully impressed as they should be 

 with the importance of giving appropriate specific names 

 to new species. " Trivial " names is in many cases an accu- 

 rate designation. When a new name has to be given, it 

 seems to me that the first effort should be directed towards 

 applying a name which has at least some connection 

 with the object to which it is applied, and if possible 

 indicate one of the features by which its specific distinc- 

 tion is established. In very large genera this will often be 

 difficult, but seldom impossible, if sufficient reflection be 

 permitted. This presupposes, of course, clear notions of 

 what are the distinctive features of the new species, and 

 something more than a mere superficial knowledge of its 

 congeners. The custom of giving complimentary names 

 has considerably increased of late years, and seems almost 

 to have culminated in absurdity. It is never a thankful 

 office to impute blame, or point out the failings of others, 

 and I should never have ventured to draw attention to 

 this subject did I not conceive that the application of 

 complimentary specific names has become an abuse which 

 needs to be protested against. I am willing to concede 

 that the occasional dedication of a new species to some 

 acknowledged authority, one who has published a mono- 

 graph of the genus, or who has identified himself more or 



less with the subject, may be a graceful compliment ; but 

 even this should hardly supersede a name indicative of 

 some special feature in the new species. My own feelings 

 are in favour of wholly restricting such compliments to 

 generic names. But wherefore should a mere collector, 

 one who has stumbled over a new species by mere acci- 

 dent, by collecting everything that came in his way of a 

 particular kind, unable perhaps even to recognise generic 

 distinctions, be flattered by having his name attached to 

 the new form by some one who has had all the scientific 

 labour in examining, describing, and naming it for him ? 

 Has science no higher aim than that of scattering com- 

 pliments ? It must cause many a smile to pass across 

 the countenances of the unscientific if they open a new 

 cryptogamic flora, a monograph, or even glance through a 

 volume of some scientific journal, to see on one page how 

 Mr. Brown ventures to name something new in honour of 

 his friend Mr. Robinson, and a few pages further on Mr. 

 Robinson returns the compliment in favour of Mr. Brown ; 

 or in another case how in five or six genera, extending 

 over as many pages, the same " indefatigable col- 

 lector '' is honoured by having his name as many times 

 repeated, as if new species were only so many pegs on 

 which compliments are to be suspended. My own expe- 

 rience is very much restricted to cryptogamic botany, and 

 my remarks may be much less pertinent to other branches 

 of natural science. Zoologists may not be addicted to 

 such forms of flattery. Continental mycologists are cer- 

 tainly very great sinners in this respect. My object iit 

 drawing the attention of readers of N.\turh to this sub- 

 ject is to protest against this "abuse of complimentary 

 names," and to ascertain if some definite restriction can- 

 not be placed upon this tendency to encumber our lists 

 with an array of names which convey only one meaning, 

 and which I would designate " flattery names.'' I hardfy 

 think it necessary to cite particular instances, as a ques- 

 tion of this kind should be decided upon its merits, and 

 without the introduction of personalities. The sceptical 

 should make the experiment with some recent volume 

 containing descriptions of new species. In one contin- 

 gency, I think that it is not only admissible but advisable 

 to use a complimentary name. If an author describes a 

 species under a name which has already been adopted in 

 the same genus, it would be very inconvenient to have 

 the one specific name applied by two authors to different 

 things. In such a case it is the custom for any one who 

 may be working up and publishing a synopsis of the genus 

 to suppress the most recent of the two specific names, 

 and apply to it the name of the author who unconsciously 

 fell into the error. Provided always that he recognises 

 the species having priority of name as a valid member of 

 the genus, there cannot be much abuse of this recog- 

 nised practice, against which I have nothing to urge. It 

 would be simple folly to make laws which there is no 

 power but "common sense" to enforce ; and no decision 

 which I may determine upon will be binding upon any 

 one save myself ; yet I cannot but regret that any who 

 have laboured year after year in love for their own special 

 branch of science, often following it for its own sake alone, 

 through many sacrifices, should be tempted to employ the 

 knowledge they have so acquired as a means whereby to 

 compliment their friends or flatter their inferiors, forgetful 

 of the practical sarcasms that they are hurhng at their 

 own pursuits. M. C. C. 



THE ECLIPSE OBSERVATIONS AT BEKUL 



'X*HE illustrations which accompany this, for the loan 

 •*■ of which we are indebted to the courtesy of the 

 Editor of the lUustratcd London News, are from photo- 

 graphs of the Eclipse party stationed at Bekul, taken by 

 Mr. McC. Webster, the Collector of South Canara. The 

 first represents the fort in which Mr. Lockyer and Captain 



