556 report— 1878. 



of a third form to this group, or at least a very striking modification of one of the 

 forms, the large New Guinea echidna (Acanthoglossus Bruyriii), is the last im- 

 portant acquisition to our knowledge of the class. 



In this brief review of the progress of one small section of one branch of 

 zoological knowledge it will be seen that it is chiefly of systems of arrangement, 

 of classification, and of names that I have been treating. By many biologists of 

 the present day these are looked upon as the least attractive and least profitable 

 branches of the subject. The interest of classification, though it has lost much in 

 some senses by the modern advances of scientific biology, has, however, gained 

 vastly in others. The idea that has now, chiefly in consequence of the writings of 

 Darwin, taken such strong hold upon all working naturalists — the idea of a gradual 

 growth and progressive evolution, and therefore genetic connection between all living 

 things — breaks down the artificial barriers which zoologists raise around their 

 groups, and shows that such names as species, genera, families, orders, &c, are 

 merely more or less clumsy attempts to express various shades of differences among 

 creatures connected by infinite gradations, and in this sense destroys the importance 

 attached to them by our predecessors. On the other hand, it immensely increases 

 the interest contained in the word " relationship," as it implies that the word is used 

 in a real and not, as formerly, in a metaphorical sense. There is a kind of classifi- 

 cation, such as we might apply to inanimate substances or manufactured articles. 

 We may say, for instance, that a tumbler, a wine-glass, and a tea-cup are more 

 closely related to each other than either one is to a chair or a table, and that they 

 might be formed into one group, and the last-named objects be placed in a second. 

 This kind of classification is certainly useful in its way, for methodical arrangement 

 and descriptive purposes. It is the kind of arrangement which Linnaeus and his 

 contemporaries applied to animals. It is, however, a very different classification 

 from that which supposes that the members of a group having common essential 

 characters are descended from a common ancestor, and have gradually, by whatever 

 cause or means, become differentiated from other groups. On this view a true 

 classification, if it could be obtained, would be a revelation of the whole secret of 

 the evolution of animal life, and it is no wonder that many are willing to devote 

 so large a share of their energies to endeavour to attain it. 



The right application of the principles of nomenclature, first clearly established 

 by Linnaeus, to the groups we form is, again, by no means to be despised, as laxity 

 and carelessness in this respect are becoming more and more the greatest hindrances 

 to the study of Zoology. The introduction of any new term, especially a generic 

 name, and indeed the use of an old one by any person whose authority carries 

 weight, has an appreciable effect upon the progress of science, and should never be 

 done without a full sense of the responsibility incurred. All beginners are puzzled 

 and often repelled by the confused state of zoological nomenclature to an extent to 

 which those who have advanced so far as only to care for the things, and to whom 

 the actual names by which they are called are comparatively indifferent, have little 

 idea. Those whose special gift or inclination leads them to the pursuit of other 

 ~brancb.es of Biology, as Morphology, Physiology, Embryology, &c, must have 

 definite names for the objects they observe, depict, or describe, and are de- 

 pendent upon the researches of the systematic zoologist for supplying them, and 

 should not neglect to take his counsel, otherwise much of their work will lose its 

 value. 



Several times has the British Association thought this a worthy subject for the 

 consideration of its members, and through the instrumentality of a committee of 

 working naturalists drew up in 1842 an excellent code of regulations and sugges- 

 tions on the subject of zoological nomenclature. These rules were revised and 

 reprinted in 1865 : and in accordance with a resolution adopted at the last annual 

 meeting at Plymouth they have been again republished at the cost of the Asso- 

 ciation during the present year. The mere issue of such rules must have had a 

 beneficial effect, as they have undoubtedly been a guide to many careful and 

 conscientious workers. Unfortunately there are no means of enforcing them upon 

 those of a different class, and there is still something wanting, short of enforcing 

 them, which possibly may be within the power of the Association to effect. In 



