34 report — 1865. 



if the detectors of these errors would, as an act of courtesy, point them out 

 to the author himself, if living, and leave it to him to correct his own inad- 

 vertencies. This occasional hardship appears to us to be a less evil than to 

 permit the practice of giving the same generic name ad libitum to a multi- 

 plicity of genera. "We submit, therefore, that 



§ 10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed for some 

 other genus in zoology or botany, or for some other species in the same 

 genus, when still retained for such genus or species. 



\_A name whose meaning is glaringly false mag be changed.] 

 Our next proposition has no other claim for adoption than that of being a 

 concession to human infirmity. If such proper names of places as Covent 

 Garden, Lincoln's Inn Fields, Newcastle, Bridgewater, &c, no longer suggest 

 the ideas of gardens, fields, castles, or bridges, but refer the mind with the 

 quickness of thought to the particular localities which they respectively de- 

 signate, there seems no reason why the proper names used in natural history 

 should not equally perform the office of correct indication, even when their 

 etymological meaning may be wholly inapplicable to the object which they 

 typify. But we must remember that the language of science has but a 

 limited currency, and hence the words which compose it do not circulate with 

 the same freedom and rapidity as those which belong to every-day life. The 

 attention is consequently liable in scientific studies to be diverted from the 

 contemplation of the thing signified to the etymological meaning of the sign, 

 and hence it is necessary to provide that the latter shall not be such as to 

 propagate actual error. Instances of this kind are indeed very rare, and in 

 some cases, such as that of Monodon, Caprimulgus, JParadisea apoda and 

 Monocidus, they have acquired sufficient currency no longer to cause error, 

 and are therefore retained without change. But when we find a Batrachian 

 reptile named in violation of its true affinities Mastodonsaurus, a Mexican 

 species termed (through erroneous information of its habitat) Picus cafer, or 

 an olive-coloured one Muscicapa atra, or when a name is derived from an 

 accidental monstrosity, as in Picas semirostris of Linnasus, and Helix dis- 

 juncta of Turton, we feel justified in cancelling these names, and adopting 

 that synonym which stands next in point of date. At the same time we 

 think it right to remark that this privilege is very liable to abuse, and 

 ought therefore to be applied only to extreme cases and with great caution. 

 With these limitations we may concede that 



§ 11. A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition which 

 is likely to propagate important errors. 



[Names not clearly defined may be changed.'] 

 Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the name is given, it 

 cannot be recognized by others, and the signification of the name is conse- 

 quently lost. Two things are necessary before a zoological term can acquire 

 any authority, viz., definition and. publication. Definition properly implies 

 a distinct exposition of essential characters, and in all cases we conceive 

 this to be indispensable, although some authors maintain that a mere enu- 

 meration of the component species, or even of a single type, is sufficient to 

 authenticate a genus. To constitute pvMioation) nothing short of the inser- 

 tion of the above particvdars in a printed booh can be held sufficient. Many 

 birds, for instance, in the Paris and other continental museums, shells in the 

 British Museum (in Dr. Leach's time), and fossils in the Scarborough and 

 other public collections, have received MS. names, which will bo of no 



