26o 



NATURE 



\Feb. 5, 1874 



stable and well-defined group) there might be little objec- 

 tion to retaining it ; but when it leads to the use of a 

 name indicating a distinct and often quite unrelated 

 family — as Silpha scabra for one of the Lamellicornes, 

 {Tro.r scabra) in the example given by Mr. Sharp — the 

 system will, we apprehend, be almost unanimously re- 

 jected. 



Many minor details of nomenclature are discussed in 

 the essay before us, and on some of these the author's 

 views are more likely to meet ultimately with general 

 acceptance. He objects strongly, for example, to the 

 common practice among classical purists of altering all 

 names which they consider to be not properly spelt or 

 not constructed on true classical principles. For, as he 

 justly remarks, the emenders can give no guarantee that 

 their alterations will be permanently accepted, since 

 others may come after them who will have different 

 views as to classical orthography and propriety of nomen- 

 clature. He points in particular to the inconvenience of 

 placing an H before many names which were originally 

 spelt with a vowel, thus altering their places in an alpha- 

 betical arrangement, and creating a synonym for no 

 useful purpose whatever. 



Although it appears to us pretty certain that the plan 

 of returning to the first generic name given to a species 

 will not be adopted, the proposal to do so may lead to a 

 reconsideration of the practice of applying the law of 

 priority to generic names, as all are agreed it must be 

 applied to specific or trivial names. If the generic part 

 of the name may be altered any number of times in accor- 

 dance with altered views as to classification, the principle 

 of priority in the mere name is so totally given up, that 

 it seems absurd to use it for the purpose of resuscitating 

 the obsolete appellations of early writers. When an 

 author is admitted to have defined a natural genus, he 

 should have full power to give a name to that genus, 

 because it is really a new thing ; and it is both illogical 

 and inconvenient to reject his name because some former 

 writer has given another name to a group, not the same, 

 but which merely happened to contain some one or more 

 of the same species. Again, we think Mr. Sharp's argu- 

 ments suggest the advisability of opposing the splitting up 

 of large genera into many smaller ones otherwise than 

 provisionally ; the old generic name continuing to be 

 used till there is a concurrence of opinion as to the 

 necessity of adopting the new ones. The older authors 

 were often modest enough to do this ; indicating natural 

 divisions of large genera, but not naming them ; whereas 

 modern naturalists, as a rule, feel bound to give a new 

 name to every fragment they can split off an established 

 genus. 



It appears, then, to the present writer, that the plan 

 best adapted to lead speedily to a fixed nomenclature, and 

 at the same time one that will least offend the prejudices 

 of zoologists, is as follows : — 



1. To adopt, absolutely and without exception, the prin- 

 ciple of priority as regards specific or trivial names. 



2. To adopt the same principle for genera only so long 

 as the generic character or definition of the genus re- 

 mains unaltered ; but whenever an original investigator 

 defines a genus more completely than has been done 

 before, he is to be left free to name it as he pleases. 

 Every consideration of utility and common sense will of 



course lead him to retain a name already in use when the 

 new genus does not materially differ from an older one : 

 but of that he is alone the judge, and it should be abso- 

 lutely forbidden to any third party to say that a name so 

 given must be changed. 



3. Whenever genera which are widely recognised are 

 split up into a number of proposed smaller ones, the old 

 generic name should continue in use till further investi- 

 gation determines whether the new groups are sufficiently 

 well defined and natural to supplant the old one. 



In conclusion, it may be suggested that if zoologists 

 who have paid attention to this subject would, after a 

 careful consideration of Mr. Sharp's paper, state their 

 own conclusions in the form of short propositions, accom- 

 panied by their reasons for them, a notion might be ob- 

 tained, not only as to which system is intrinsically the 

 best, but, what is of equal or perhaps greater importance, 

 which is most likely to command general assent. 



Alfred R. Wallace 



RESULTS OF THE FRENCH SCIENTIFIC 

 MISSION TO MEXICO 

 Mission ScwntifiqHe au Mc.rique tt dans I'Aineriq'ue 

 Ccnirale. Recherches Zoologiques publiees sous la 

 direction de M. Milne-Edwards. Livraisons 4. (Paris : 

 1870-72.) 



THE ill-fated attempt of the Second Empire to estab- 

 Imperialism in Mexico has had at least one 

 good result in the work now before us, in which the 

 labours of a Scientific Mission originally sent out under 

 the shadow of the French Army are given to the world. 

 The materials accumulated by M. Bocourt and his Fellow- 

 Naturalists, were deposited in the National Museum of 

 the Jardin des Plantes, and the elaboration of them en- 

 trusted to special workers in the different branches of 

 science. In 1870 three livraisons were issued, each forming 

 the commencement of a separate section ofthework, as 

 planned out under the direction of M. Milne- Edwards. 

 These relate to the terrestrial and fluviatile Molluscs, by 

 MM. Fischer and Crosse ; to the Orthopterous Insects 

 and Myriapods, by M. Henri de Saussure; and to the 

 Reptiles and Batrachians, by MM. Auguste Dumcril and 

 Bocourt. The fall of the Empire and German occupa- 

 tion stopped the immediate progress of the work, but we 

 are glad to see it has now been resumed. A second 

 livraison of the section devoted to the Myriapods, pre- 

 pared by MM. H. de Saussure and Humbert, has been 

 lately issued, and we believe it is fully intended to bring 

 the work to a conclusion. It will be observed that 

 authors engaged on the various sections are all 

 well-known authorities on the subjects of which they 

 treat, and that the figures and illustrations are of 

 an elaborate character. We are the more glad to call 

 the attention of our readers to the revival of this work, 

 because it does not appear to be very generally 

 known to naturalists, and because it has lately been the 

 subject of a most unjustifiable attack in an English scien- 

 tific periodical.* After a general condemnation of the 

 work we are there informed that it is " a lamentable exhi- 

 bition of the very backward state of zoological science in 



* Ann. Nat. Hist, for August 1873, 



