TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION 1). — DEPT. ZOOLOGY AND BOTANT. 557 



the administration of the judicial affairs of a nation, besides the makers of the laws, 

 we have an equally essential body to interpret or apply the law to particular cases — 

 the judges. However carefully compiled or excellent a code of regulations may 

 be, dubious and difficult cases will arise, to which the application of the law is 

 not always clear, and about which individual opinions will differ. The necessary 

 permission given in the Association rules to change names which are either 

 ' glaringly false,' or ' not clearly defined,' opens the door to considerable latitude of 

 private interpretation. As what we are aiming at is simply convenience and 

 general accord, and not absolute justice or truth, there are also cases in which the 

 rigid law of priority, even if it can be ascertained, requires qualification, and other 

 cases in which it may be advisable to put up with a small error or inconvenience to 

 avoid falling into a larger one. I may name such cases as the propriety of reviving 

 an obsolete or almost unknown name for one which, if not strictly legitimate, has 

 been universally accepted, or the retention of a name when already applied to a. 

 different genus, instead of the institution of another in its place. For instance, 

 should the name Echidna, by which the well-known Monotremous Mammal is 

 known in every text-book and catalogue in every language, be susperseded by 

 Tac.hyglossus, because the former name had previously been applied to a genus of 

 snakes? or should the chimpanzee be no longer called Troglodytes lest it should 

 be confounded with a wren? Should Chiromys be discarded for Dauhentonia, 

 Trichechus for Odobenus, and Tapirus for Hydroc/icerus? Should the Java slow 

 lemur be called Loris, Stenops, or Nycticebus ? Should Sowerby's whale be placed, 

 in the genus Physeter, Delphinus, Delphinorhynchus, Heterodon, Diodon, Aodon, 

 Nodus, Ziphius, Micropterus, Micropteron, Mesodiodon, Dioplodon, or Mesoplodon, 

 in all of which it may be found in various systematic lists ? Should one of the 

 largest and best known of the Cetaceans of our seas be called Bcdcenoptera mus- 

 culus, Physalus antiquorum, or Pt.erobalcena communis, all names used for it by 

 authors of high authority? Should the smallest British seal be called Phoca 

 hispnda, fwtida, or anellata ? 



I might go on indefinitely multiplying instances which will be answered 

 differently by different naturalists, the arguments for one or the other name being 

 often nicely balanced. What is wanted, therefore, is some kind of judicial authority 

 for deciding which should in future be used. If a committee of eminent naturalists, 

 selected from various nations, and divided into several sections, according to the 

 subjects with which each member is most familiar, could be prevailed upon to take 

 up the task of revising the whole of our existing nomenclature upon the basis of 

 the laws issued by the Association in 1842, occasionally tempering their strictly 

 legal decisions with a little discretion and common sense, and with a view, as 

 much as possible, of avoiding confusion, and promoting general convenience ; and 

 if the working zoologists of the world generally would agree to accept the decisions 

 of such a committee as final, we should dispose of many of the difficulties with 

 which we are now troubled. There seems to me no more reason why the nomen- 

 clature of such a committee, if it were composed of men in whose judgment their 

 fellow- workers would have confidence, should not be as universally accepted as is 

 'the nomenclature of the last edition of the Systema Natures of Linnaeus. We have 

 agreed not to look beyond that work for evidence of priority, and why should we 

 not agree in the same way to accept decisions which would probably be arrived at 

 with even fuller knowledge and greater sense of responsibility ? 



Whether this suggestion will be received with favour or not, it appeared to me 

 that it was one not inappropriate for the consideration of this Section which has 

 already dealt with the question in a manner so advantageous to science, and also 

 for this year which has witnessed the hundredth anniversary of the death of the 

 great teacher of systematic zoology. 



Our knowledge of the living inhabitants of the earth has indeed changed since 

 that time. Our views of their relations to the universe, to each other, and to our- 

 selves, have undergone great revolutions. The knowledge of Linnaeus far sur- 

 passed that of any of his contemporaries ; but yet of what we now know he knew 

 but an infinitesimal amount. Much that he thought he knew we now deem false. 

 Nevertheless, some of the oldest words to be found in all his writings contain, 



