. 
| 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 485 
now recorded for this county, so that, as the authors say,—previously 
remarking that all the specimens have been submitted to them,—* North- 
amptonshire, which till within the last decade was one of the terre 
incognite of Couchology, bids fair to become one of the most systematically 
and most intelligently investigated counties of Britain.” 
Varietal Nomenclature.—May I be allowed a few words in answer to 
Mr. Woodward's remarks (pp. 408-414). It appears that we start on 
common ground; we both agree that it is expedient that varieties should 
be described, and that variation ought not to be ignored; but it is in the 
method of making them public and of subsequently referring to them that 
we differ. I have already explained my views on this subject (Sci. Gos. 
1885, pp. 179, 180), and will therefore not go over them again, but will 
confine my line of argument to the case in point. If, then, varieties 
are to be described, they must either be described in Latin or in the native 
language of the describer. The international character of Latin seems to 
me an unanswerable argument in favour of its use. Mr. Woodward, how- 
ever, writes of his varieties in English terms, as, for instance, his “ rufous 
type’ of H. arbustorum. Suppose we change this term into Latin; what 
is the result? We have it simply reduced to H. arbustorum, var. rufa, or 
its equivalent. Having, then, so easily produced one varietal name by a 
mere translation of the name Mr. Woodward uses, what rules shall we 
observe in the production of similar ones? I would suggest the following : 
—1. Avoid a combination of many characters, but as far as possible give a 
name to each character, and in a specimen having, like var. Baylei, many 
characters, mention as many names as there are distinct characters. 2. 
Except in some gevgraphical varieties or subspecies, when certain unusual 
characters are always associated. 3. Let the name you give describe, as 
nearly as possible, the abnormal character it refers to. 4. Name no 
varieties (or, for the matter of that, species) after individuals, nor, except 
in some exceptional instances, after the habitat. (The use of the word 
“variety” is by no means essential; the Americans dispense with it in 
their trinomial system.) If these rules were followed, var. Baylei would 
become H. arbustorum, var. minor+conoidea+ tenuis-+ virescens + unicolor. 
Rather a long name, or set of names, but I think that what is lost in 
length is gained in clearness and accuracy. ‘These names should not be 
loosely applied, but each one should refer to a definite character, and the 
same name should be used to express the same character in every species in 
which it occurs. Nevertheless, the law of priority should not be infringed, 
unless, at least, a majority of those concerned can be shown to be in favour 
of the reform, and, until it is so proved, to avoid still greater confusion, 
we should continue to use the term Bayle. The best way, I think, to get 
over the difficulty would be to submit the matter to the vote of those 
interested, and abide by the result. Tosum up: if I had the remodelling 
