360 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 



from are so numerous and of such long standing, that to 

 carry these regulations into effect would undermine the edifice 

 of zoological nomenclature. But while we do not adopt these 

 propositions as authoritative laws, they may still be consulted 

 with advantage in making such additions to the language of 

 zoology as are required by the progress of the science. By 

 adhering to sound principles of philology we may avoid errors 

 in future, even when it is too late to remedy the past ; and the 

 language of science will thus eventually assume an aspect of 

 more classic purity than it now presents. 



Our subject hence divides itself into two parts— the first con- 

 sisting of Rules for the rectification of the present zoological 

 nomenclature, and the second of Recommendations for the im- 

 provement of zoological nomenclature in future. 



PART I. 



RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE. 



[Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature^ 

 In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent 

 and universal zoological nomenclature, it must be premised 

 that we refer solely to the Latin or sj^stematic language of 

 zoology. We have nothing to do with vernacular appellations. 

 One great cause of the neglect and corruption which prevails 

 in the scientific nomenclature of zoology, has been the frequent 

 and often exclusive use of vernacular names in lieu of the Latin 

 binomial designations, which form the only legitimate language 

 of systematic zoology. Let us then endeavour to render 

 perfect the Latin or Liunasan method- of nomenclature, which, 

 being far removed from the scope of national vanities and 

 modern antipathies, holds out the only hope of introducing into 

 zoology that grand desideratum, an universal language. 



[Law of Priority the only effectual and just one,] 



It being admitted on all hands that words are only the con- 

 ventional signs of ideas, it is evident that language can only 

 attain its end effectually by being permanently established and 

 generally recognised. This consideration ought, it would seem, 

 to have checked those who are continually attempting to subvert 

 the established language of zoology by substituting terms of 

 their own coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, 

 they persist in confounding the name of a species or group with 

 its definition ; and because the former often falls short of the ful- 

 ness of expression found in the latter, they cancel it without hesita- 



