404 
NATURE 
[Marcu 17, 1904 
The fact that the British Government has given a con- 
siderable grant for a limited and short period in order to 
meet part of the expense of an international fishery in- 
vestigation does not, unfortunately, enable us to claim that 
we have a ‘‘ marine biologist to the Government.’’ The 
Government gives various grants to enable special pieces 
of scientific work to be carried out, but that does not 
constitute the recipients Government officials. 
Dr. Allen reminds us that a marine biologist has been 
recently appointed inspector of fisheries. Fortunately that 
is no new thing. The list in the past includes Huxley and 
Frank Buckland, and we hope that all our inspectors of 
fisheries are competent biologists—but they are H.M.’s 
““ Inspectors of Fisheries.”’ 
The Government grant to the Marine Biological Associ- 
ation goes to no Government official. The cover of the 
current number of the Journal of the Marine Biological 
Association announces that ‘‘ The Association owes its 
existence and its present satisfactory condition to a com- 
bination of scientific naturalists, and of gentlemen who, 
from philanthropic or practical reasons, are specially 
interested in the great sea-fisheries of the United Kingdom.” | 
This is no Government institution. 
One of the conditions attached to the annual grant from 
the Treasury was that space at the Plymouth Laboratory 
should be placed at the disposal of any competent investi- 
gator deputed to carry out investigations into fishery 
questions. None of the Government fishery departments 
(England, Scotland, Ireland) have, however, availed them- 
selves of this condition. Where, then, is the ‘‘ Government 
marine biologist ’’? Tue WRITER OF THE NOTE. 
Learned and Unlearned Societies. 
Mr. Basset’s letter (p. 437) is of importance in giving 
authoritative evidence of what goes on behind the scenes. 
It was only a matter of suspicion with me that the benevo- 
lent rejectors sometimes knew even less about the subjects 
of the papers than the authors themselves. But the remedy 
proposed by Mr. Basset is, I fear, a very unsatisfactory one. 
Just the same sort of thing can and does occur elsewhere. 
The only right and proper course seems to be that indicated | 
by Mr. Buchanan. It would be enormously to the advantage 
of an old-established institution, and to its members, even 
though there might sometimes be some counteraction by the 
admission of poor matter. But it is not necessary to repeat 
here Mr. Buchanan’s argument, which was very strong 
and full of common sense. OLIVER HEAVISIDE. 
March 13. 
A Plea for Good English. 
I BELIEVE the phrase that “‘ language was given us to 
conceal our thoughts’ only holds good in diplomacy, and 
it may therefore be reasonably expected that a professor of 
science should endeavour to teach his pupils to express 
themselves in clear, concise and literary English. The 
German language lends itself to a process known as word- 
building, and for aught I know to the contrary, the word 
** Schwefelkohlenstoff ’’ may be good, literary German. 
But this process is altogether foreign to the genius of the 
English language, and I cannot imagine a more barbaric 
or misleading conglomeration of verbiage than the phrase 
““ chall-stuff-gas.’” Chalk is popularly associated with 
lime, or, to speak more accurately, with calcium, and to 
call a substance ‘‘ chalk-stuff-gas ’? which does not contain 
an atom of calcium appears to me a misuse of language, 
especially as CO, can be prepared in various ways without 
using any substance containing calcium, or what 
popularly known as ‘‘ chalk ”’ or “‘ lime.’’ It seems to me 
that it would be difficult to invent a more suitable phrase 
than ‘‘ carbon dioxide,’’ since it expresses in terse and 
pointed language the chemical composition of the gas. 
Alassio, March 9. A. B. Basset. 
is 
Zoological Nomenclature. 
On p. 200 of your issue of December 31, 1903, just arrived, 
in a review by “W. T. B.’’ I note an allusion to my 
“curious illustrations of zoological nomenclature,’’ and it 
is stated that my “‘ new name’ (which, by the way, was 
NO. 1794. VOL. 69| 
| karkinologist remarks, 
proposed in 1899!) ‘‘ is given to a genus the type of which 
appears, according to the rules of Linnzeus himself, to be 
also the type of the Linnean genus Cimex.”’ 
Where, sir, are these ‘‘ rules of Linnaeus himself ’’ in 
which the fixation of types is set forth? I was under the 
impression that we were indebted to Fabricius for these in- 
dispensable aids to zoological nomenclature, and I would be 
grateful for the reference to Linnaeus. 
Your reviewer’s remark on Cimex contains an 
error; “‘lectularius’’ is not and cannot be the type of 
Cimex, Linn., (1) because it does not conform to the de- 
scription of that genus as set forth by the founder. More- 
over, if the type be worked out historically, ‘‘ lectularius ”’ 
is equally invalid ; the first discerptor was Fabricius, who, in 
a perfectly straightforward manner, removed our species 
from Cimex to form a part of his new genus Acanthia. This 
effectively prevents lectularius from ever appearing as the 
type of Cimex, and it is a fact well known to the students 
of the Rhynchota. 
Further, lest it might be thought that the proper generic 
name of lectularius is Acanthia, let me mention that 
in 1797 Latreille restricted the latter to “‘ littoralis ’’ and its 
congeners, and “‘ lectularius ’’? was again shut out, the way 
that, so far as my knowledge then went, I was justified in 
proposing a new name. However, since then I have 
acquired a somewhat rare book, the ‘‘ Hemiptera Sueciz ”’ 
(1829), the authorship of which is usually ascribed to Fallén, 
but is mentioned as Johannes Petersson for p. 141, where 
““Clinocoris ’’ is proposed, and I willingly, and, indeed, in- 
evitably, retire in favour of this for the unfortunate and so 
long homeless ‘‘ bed-bug.’’ My previous ignorance of this 
was shared apparently by everyone since the first announce- 
ment of the name (as applied to lectularius). 
With regard to the ‘‘ curious illustrations of zoological 
nomenclature,’’ I would refer ‘‘ W. T. B.’’ to the witty and 
able ‘* Zoological Nomenclature. Remarks on the Proposed 
International Code,’’ by T. R. R. Stebbing, in the Zoolo gist 
for October 15, 1898, 2, pp. 423-8. As the reverend 
““no possible harm is done if we do 
leave to the polished scholar some little occasion for chuck- 
ling over us untutored sons of science.” 
G. W. KirKapy. 
Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, H.I., January 26. 
“ce 
Mr. Kirkatpy’s remarks about the type of the Linnzean 
genus Cimex are a quibble, to which it is sufficient reply to 
point out that in the passage which he quotes and attempts 
to ridicule it was not stated that Cimex lectularius was 
made the tvpe of the genus by Linnzus. 
Although the selection of one species of each genus as the 
type is of later date than Linnzus, several of the Linnean 
genera are clearly founded on a particular species in each 
case. Thus, to take familiar forms, Equus is named from 
the horse, and it is therefore correct to say that E. cabailus 
is the type of the Linnzan genus Equus. Similarly Bos 
taurus is the type of Bos, and Canis familiaris of Canis. 
Similar cases are rare amongst invertebrate animals, but 
Cimex is an exception, for the generic name was taken from 
a species in the Linnzan genus that was called Cimex in 
classical Latin. The only species that can be clearly identi- 
fied with the Latin name appears to be C. lectularius, Linn. 
This, however, has been disputed—what opinion has not ? 
—by a few amongst the very many writers who have treated 
the question of Cimex and Acanthia, so another reason may 
be given for regarding C. lectularius as the type of Cimex. 
The rule of Linnzus, quoted below, was that if a genus be 
divided, the commonest and best known species should be 
retained under the original generic name. There can be no 
question that C. lectularius is by far the best known species 
of the genus. 
The “rules of Linnzus himself’? were printed in his 
‘‘ Philosophia Botanica,’? and quoted by Agassiz in the 
introduction to the ‘‘ Nomenclator Zoologicus.’’ These rules 
have always been regarded as authoritative by both botanists 
and zoologists, and should in any case be consulted when 
Linnzean genera and species are concerned. The two follow- 
ing rules apply in the present case :— t 
242. Nomen genericum Antiquum antiquo genert con- 
venit. j 
246. Si genus receptum, secundum jus naturae et artis 
