30 REPORT — 1865. 



make it pass current. Kow in zoology no one person can subsequently claim 

 an authority equal to that possessed by the person who is the first to define 

 a new genus or describe a new species ; and hence it is that the name 

 originally given, even though it may be inferior in point of elegance or 

 expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought as a general principle 

 to be permanently retained. To this consideration we ought to add the 

 injustice of erasing the name originally selected by the person to whose 

 labours we owe our first knowledge of the object ; and we should reflect how 

 much the permission of such a practice opens a door to obscure pretenders 

 for dragging themselves into notice at the expense of original observers. 

 Neither can an author be permitted to alter a name which he himself has 

 once published, except in accordance with fixed and equitable laws. It is 

 well observed by Decandollc, " L'auteur menie qui a le premier etabli un nom 

 n'a pas plus qu'uu autre le droit de le changer pour simple cause d'impro- 

 priete. La priorite en effet est un terme fixe, positif, qui n'admet rien, ni 

 d'arbitraire ni de partial." 



For these reasons, we have no hesitation in adopting as our fundamental 

 maxim, the " law of priority," viz., 



§ 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group or the describer 

 of a species shoidd be permanently retained, to the exclusion of all subse- 

 quent synonyms (with the exceptions about to be noticed). 



Having laid down this principle, we must next inquire into the limitations 

 which are found necessary in carrying it into practice. 



[Not to extend to authors older than Li imams. ~\ 



As our subject matter is strictly confined to the binomial system of nomen- 

 clature, or that which indicates species by means of two Latin words, the one 

 generic, the other specific, and as this invaluable method originated solely 

 with Linnaeus, it is clear that, as far as species are concerned, we ought not 

 to attempt to carry back the principle of priority beyond the date of the 12th 

 edition of the ' Systems Naturae,' 17G6. Previous to that period, natural- 

 ists were wont to indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but 

 by a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of which 

 method was productive of great inconvenience. It is true that one word 

 sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, but these rare cases were 

 only binomial by accident and not by principle, and ought not therefore in 

 any instance to supersede the binomial designations imposed by Linnaeus. 



The same reasons apply also to generic names. Linnaeus was the first to 

 attach a definite value to genera, and to give them a systematic character by 

 means of exact definitions ; and therefore, although the names used by pre- 

 vious authors may often be applied with propriety to modern genera, yet in 

 such cases they acquire a new meaning, and should be quoted on the authority 

 of the first person who used them in this secondary sense. It is true, that 

 several of the old authors 'made occasional approaches to the Linnaean exact- 

 ness of generic definition, but still these were but partial attempts ; and it 

 is certain that if in our rectification of the binomial nomenclature we once 

 trace back our authorities into the obscurity which preceded the epoch of its 

 foundation, we shall find no resting-place or fixed boundary for our researches. 

 The nomenclature of Eay is chiefly derived from that of Gesner and Aldro- 

 vandus, and from these authors we might proceed backward to iElian, Plinv, 

 and Aristotle, till our zoological studies would be frittered away amid the 

 refinements of classical learning*. 



* "Quis longo sevo recepta vocabula conmmtavet hoclie?" — Zinnaus. 



