RULES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 39 



into zoology, which furnishes too many examples of them already. We have 

 them compounded of Greek and Latin, as Denclrofalco, Gymnocorvus, Mono- 

 eulus, Arborophila, Jlavkfaster ; Greek and French, as Jacamaralcyon, Jaca- 

 merops ; and Greek and English, as BullocJcoides, Gilbertsocrinites. 



n. Names closely resembling other names already used. — By Ride 10 it was 

 laid down that when a name is introduced which is identical with one pre- 

 viously used, the later one shoidd be changed. Some authors have extended 

 the same principle to cases where the later name, when correctly written, 

 only approaches in form, without wholly coinciding with, the earlier. We 

 do not, however, think it advisable to make this law imperative, first, because 

 of the vast extent of our nomenclature, which renders it highly difficult to 

 find a name which shall not bear more or less resemblance in sound to some 

 other ; and, secondly, because of the impossibility of fixing a limit to the 

 degree of approximation beyond which such a law shoidd cease to operate. 

 We content ourselves, therefore, with putting forth this proposition merely as 

 a recommendation to naturalists, in selecting generic names, to avoid such as 

 too closely approximate words already adopted. So with respect to species, 

 the judicious naturalist will aim at variety of designation, and will not, for 

 example, call a species virens or virescens in a genus which already possesses 

 a viridis. 



o. Corrupted words. — In the construction of compound Latin words, there 

 are certain grammatical rides which have been known and acted on for two 

 thousand years, and which a naturalist is bound to acquaint himself with 

 before he tries his skill in coining zoological terms. One of the chief of these 

 rules is, that in compounding words all the radical or essential parts of the 

 constituent members must be retained, and no change made except in the 

 variable termiuations. But several generic names have been lately intro- 

 duced which run counter to this ride, and form most unsightly objects to all 

 who are conversant with the spirit of the Latin language. A name made 

 up of the first half of one word and the last half of another, is as deformed 

 a monster in nomenclature as a Mermaid or a Centaur would be in zoo^gy ; 

 yet we find examples in the names Corcoran (from Corvus and Pyrrhocorax), 

 Oypsnagra (from Cypselus and Tanagra), Merulaxis (Merula and Synallcuvis), 

 Loxigilla (Loxia and Fringilla), ike. In other cases, where the commence- 



,it of both the simple words is retained in the compound, a fault is still 

 committed by cutting off too much of the radical and vital portions, as is 

 the case in Bucorvus (from Buceros and Corvus), Ninox\(Nisus and Noc- 

 tua), &c. 



p. Nonsense names. — Some authors having found difficulty in selecting 

 generic names which have not been used before, have adopted the plan of 

 coining words at random without any .derivation or meaning whatever. The 

 following are examples : Viralva, Xema, Azeca, Assiminia, Quedius, Sjoisula. 

 To the same class we may refer anagrams of other generic names, as Dacelo 

 and Cedola of Alcedo, Zajoornia of Porzana, <kc. Such verbal trifling as this 

 is in very bad taste, and is especially calculated to bring the science into 

 contempt. It finds no precedent in the Augustan age of Latin, but can be 

 compared only to the" puerde quibblings of the middle ages. It is contrary 

 to the genius of all languages, which appear never to produce new words by 

 spontaneous generation, but always to derive them from some other source, 

 however distant or obscure. And it is peculiarly annoying to the etymologist, 

 who, after seeking in vain through the vast storehouses of human language 

 for the parentage of such words, discovers at last that he has been pursuing 

 an ignis fat mis. 



