Feb. 5, 1874] 



NA TURE 



259 



called the specific or trivial name, having exclusive refe- 

 rence to the species itself, the first word — which is called 

 the generic name, indicating the genus, or small natural 

 group, which comprises the species in question along with 

 others. Thus the cat, the tiger, and the lion, belonging 

 to one genus or small natural group of closely-allied ani- 

 mals, are called respectively, Felis callus, Fclis tigris, 

 and Fclis Ico. The name of each species, therefore, 

 shows us what group it belongs to, and thus gives us a 

 clue to its affinities ; and the system of nomenclature is 

 to this extent classificatory. But, as the true natural 

 grouping of species has not yet been agreed upon by 

 naturalists, and genera have been in a state of incessant 

 change from the time of Linnaeus to the present hour (or 

 for about a century), the names of an immense number 

 of species have been repeatedly altered ; and one of the 

 first requisites of a good system of nomenclature — that 

 the same object shall always be known by the same name — 

 has been lost, in the attempt to make the name a guide to 

 classification, while the classification itself has ever been 

 fluctuating and still remains unsettled. As an example 

 let us take the Snowy Owl. This has been placed by 

 different ornithological authors in the genera Bubo, Strix, 

 Noctua, Nyctea, Syrinium, and Surnia ; and at the same 

 time, owing to carelessness or error, a number of different 

 specific or trival names have also been used, such as 

 scan did ca, artica, nivea, erminea, Candida, and nyctea; 

 and the various combinations of these two sets of names 

 have led to the use of about twenty distinct appellations lor 

 this single species of bird. This example is by no means 

 a very extreme one ; and it represents what occurs over 

 and over again, in varying degrees, in every department 

 of zoology and botany. 



In order to determine in every case which of the 

 names which are or have been in use is the right name, 

 and so arrive at uniformity of nomenclature, certain rules 

 have been pretty generally agreed upon, the most impor- 

 tant of which is that of " priority." This means that the 

 first name given to a species is to be the name used, even 

 when it has never come into general use, but is now dis- 

 covered in some scarce volume dated 80 or ico years ago. 

 But this absolute law of priority only applies to the 

 specific or trivial name ; in the case of the generic name 

 no such absolute priority has been thought possible, be- 

 cause the genera of the old authors were very extensive 

 groups, which have now been divided, in some cases into 

 hundreds of genera. This process of division has, how- 

 ever, gone on step by step, one author dividing an old 

 genus into three or four new ones, with new names ; 

 another dividing some of these still further, with more new 

 names ; another perhaps discovering that these genera were 

 not natural, and grouping the species into genera on alto- 

 gether different principles, and again giving new names. 

 Genera have been thus subdivided to such an extent that 

 the owls, for example, which Linnaius classed as one genus, 

 now number more than fi ty ; and the ten British owls 

 have to be placed in nine distinct genera. 



In the very ingenious and carelul essay which has led 

 to these remarks, Mr. David Sharp, a well-known ento- 

 mologist, advocates a mode of attaining the great desi- 

 deratum of naturalists — a fixed and uniform nomencla- 

 ture of species — which has not, so far as we are aware, 

 b een suggested before, although it is at once simple and 



logical. He proposes that, not merely one-half, but the 

 entire name of every species once given, should be invio- 

 lable, until by general consent some permanent classifica- 

 tory system of naming species, analogous to that used in 

 chemistry, is arrived at. The insect named by Linnseus 

 Papilio dido should, for example, retain that name, al- 

 though it must find its classificatory place in the genus 

 Colcenis and the family Nymphalidas ; while the glossy 

 starling of the East should retain the name Turdus cantor, 

 given to it by Gmelin, although it is no thrush, and be- 

 longs to the genus Calornis. The name would thus 

 remain fixed, however the place of the species in our 

 classifications might be changed ; and the very errors of 

 the original describers might help us to remember the 

 object referred to by directing our attention to the cause 

 of their error in classifying it. A beginner might, it is 

 true, be misled, but the mistake once pointed out, the 

 very inappropriateness of the name would serve us an 

 aid to memory, as in the well-known "ii^ciis a non lucendo.'' 

 It is also pointed out that the value of the binomial 

 nomenclature as a guide to the affinities of a species is 

 now almost lost, owing to the minute subdivision of the 

 old well-marked groups and the consequent multiplica- 

 tion of genera. No one can remember the names of all 

 the genera of beetles now that they exceed ten thousand, 

 unless he devotes his life to their study ; and even then 

 the fixity of the names of all the old and well-known 

 species would be a great help in the study of new classi- 

 fications, or the use of modern catalogues. 



A great evil of the present system is, that while pro- 

 fessing to keep the specific or trivial name inviolable, it 

 often compels an entire change of name. This happens 

 whenever, by a new arrangement, a species has to be 

 placed in a genus which already contains the same trivial 

 name. Two species thus come to have the same name, 

 and one of these must be wholly changed. The evil of 

 this system of perpetually changing names is not so much 

 the trouble it gives us to find out what object a name 

 really refers to (though that is serious) as the enormous 

 waste of labour involved in the elaborate working out of 

 synonomy, rendered many fold more difficult by the com- 

 plication of changes in both the generic and specific 

 names, from a variety of causes. These difficulties are 

 much greater in the case of genera than in that of species ; 

 and this portion of synonomy would be almost got rid of 

 if it were decided that the first binomial name given to a 

 species should never be changed. We should then avoid 

 the absurdity of having hundreds of familiar names 

 abolished, because a mere compiler of an early catalogue, 

 who had perhaps never seen the objects themselves, 

 divided them up almost at random into a number of 

 named r'''^ups> > or because some modern student thinks 

 it advisable to split up every large genus into dozens of 

 smaller ones. 



These appear to be weighty arguments in favour of 

 Mr. .Sharp's proposal, yet we are far from thinking that it 

 will be adopti-d. For, after all, the changed names are 

 but few in comparison with those which remain unchanged 

 for considerable periods ; and the charm of a nomen- 

 clature which is to a considerable extent classificatory is 

 so great, that most naturalists will strongly object to 

 giving it up. So long as the old name keeps within the 

 bounds of the modern family (which is in most cases a 



