358 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



divided into independent states, kept asunder by diversities of 

 language as well as by geographical limits. If an English 

 zoologist, for example, visits the museums and converses with 

 the professors of France, he finds that their scientific language 

 is almost as foreign to him as their vernacular. Almost every 

 specimen which he examines is labelled by a title which is 

 unknown to him, and he feels that nothing short of a continued 

 residence in that country can make him conversant with her 

 science. If he proceeds thence to Germany or Russia, he is 

 again at a loss ; bewildered everywhere amidst the confusion 

 of nomenclature, he returns in despair to his own country and 

 to the museums and books to which he is accustomed. 



If these diversities of scientific language were as deeply 

 rooted as the vernacular tongue of each country, it would of 

 course be hopeless to think of remedying them j but happily 

 this is not the case. The language of science is in the mouths 

 of comparatively few, and these few, though scattered over 

 distant lands, are in habits of frequent and friendly intercourse 

 with each other. All that is wanted, then, is, that some plain 

 and simple regulations, founded on justice and sound reason, 

 should be drawn up by a competent body of persons, and then 

 be extensively distributed throughout the zoological world. 



The undivided attention of chemists, of astronomers, of 

 anatomists, of mineralogists, has been of late years devoted to 

 fixing their respective languages on a sound basis. Why, then, 

 do zoologists hesitate in performing the same duty, at a time, 

 too, when all acknowledge the evils of the present anarchical 

 state of their science ? 



It is needless to inquire far into the causes of the present 

 confusion of zoological nomenclature. It is in great measure 

 the result of the same branch of science having been followed 

 in distant countries by persons who were either unavoidably 

 ignorant of each other's labours, or who neglected to inform 

 themselves sufficiently of the state of the science in other 

 regions. And when Ave remark the great obstacles which now 

 exist to the circulation of books beyond the conventional limits 

 of the states in which they happen to be published, it must be 

 admitted that this ignorance of the writings of others, however 

 unfortunate, is yet in great measure pardonable. But there 

 is another source for this evil, which is far less excusable, — the 

 practice of gratifying individual vanity by attempting, on the 

 most frivolous pretexts to cancel the terms established by ori- 

 ginal discoverers, and to substitute a new and unauthorised 

 nomenclature in their place. One author lays down, as a rule, 

 that no specific names should be derived from geographical 

 sources, and unhesitatingly proceeds to insert words of his own 



