RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 27 



a circular to the following members that I considered were within compara- 

 tively easy reach, and who I thought might be able to attend in London 

 without much inconvenience, viz., Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys, Mr. Wallace, Dr. 

 Gray, Professor Babington, Dr. Francis, Dr. Sclater, Dr. J. Hooker, Mr. 

 Stainton, Professor Huxley, Mr. A. Newton, and Mr. G. Bentham. Mr. Gwyn 

 Jeffreys kindly permitted this meeting to be held at his house in Devonshire- 

 place, and it was attended by myself, Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys, Mr. Wallace, and 

 Dr. Sclater ; the other gentlemen who had been invited sending apologies that 

 from various causes they were unable to come up to London or to attend. 

 Tbey, however, expressed themselves generally favourable to some code of 

 rules being adopted. 



Professor Babington having returned his printed copy of the rules with 

 his observations written on the margin, the Committee were fully in posession 

 of his views. Mr. Wallace had brought with him a written memorandum 

 containing notes of what he thought could be altered or modified with 

 advantage. The members present then read over the printed rules and 

 recommendations one by one, and carefully compared them with the memo- 

 randa above mentioned, as well as with many letters from other naturalists, 

 and the observations made upon each were taken down at the time. The re- 

 commendations of the Committee, which I shall presently read to you, have 

 been based upon these observations, and upon the conferences and discussions 

 held at Birmingham during the present Meeting. 



Since the time that Mr. H. E. Strickland's Rules and Recommendations 

 were printed in the Reports of the British Association, zoological nomen- 

 clature has not been improved. Whether it is from the rules and recom- 

 mendations not being sufficiently well known, or from an idea that no one 

 has any right to interfere with or make rules for others, many gentlemen 

 appear to cast them away, and do not recognize them at all, while others 

 accept or reject just what pleases themselves ; in consequence many very 

 objectionable names have been given, and a very base coinage and spurious 

 combinations have been going on. The Committee does not allude to very 

 long or harsh sounding names, though they are much to be deprecated even 

 when classically compounded ; but they object to indelicate names, or to such 

 compounds as Malherbipims, Kawpifalco, Zebrapicus, &c; or, when a new 

 form in the genus Procelhria is thought to be discovered, and honour is 

 intended to be done to a distinguished navigator, such a word as Coohilaria 

 is proposed ; or, when provincial names are attempted to be Latinized, as in 

 the case of a fish commonly known as the " Tom Cod," which is entered in 

 our systems under the scientific (?) name of Morrhua tomcodus. These may 

 be said to be extreme examples, but hundreds might be given, and it is the 

 opinion of the Committee that the only way to deal with such names is 

 to reject them altogether. 



In this condition of our zoological nomenclature, then, it is of the greatest 

 importance that some general code of rules should be adopted and acted 

 upon. The Committee were perfectly agreed upon this point, but on calling 

 them together during the present Meeting of the British Association, the 

 botanists arrived at the conclusion that, having long acted in concert upon 

 the rules laid down by Linnaeus in the ' Philosophia Botanica,' and by Sir 

 James E. Smith, Decandolle, and others, it was unnecessary for them to have 

 Botany included in the Stricklandian code ; at the same time they were sen- 

 sible that some generally recognized code would be of the utmost importance 

 to zoology. The Committee therefore are of opinion and recommend : — 



