Nomenclature of Zoology. 5 
other, that if a genus in one department bears a name in common 
with a genus in some other department, the student is very un- 
likely to meet with it; or if he does, he meets it under such cir- 
cumstances as to cause him no embarrassment. While, therefore, 
it is manifestly improper that widely different objects should bear 
the same name, we are rather disposed to regard this rule as of 
prospective, rather than of retrospective, application. 
Section 11, seems to us liable to still stronger objections. Sad 
indeed would be the havoc in the nomenclature of American ob- 
jects, if all the species named Virginicus and Canadensis, were 
to receive new names because they are likely to propagate im- 
portant errors, as they frequently would at the present day. And 
would it not be as well to allow names of this character, already 
imposed, to remain, until they become so current that they may 
be retained with as much propriety as Caprimulgus, Monoculus, 
&ec., which it is conceded may remain unchanged. It is but 
proper to say, however, that the committee propose that this 
rule should be “applied only to extreme cases, and with great 
caution.” : 
The twelfth proposition seems to us the most important of all, 
after the fundamental one. It is indeed the very gist of the 
matter; the point which, if properly maintained, will command 
all the others. Until lately, the right of priority has been claimed 
where a man could but show, that, at some anterior period, he 
had given a name toa specimen in his cabinet, or had read a 
paper upon the object, and perhaps circulated specimens among 
his friends. 'The consequence has been, a superficial acquaint- 
ance with the works of naturalists, and an indifference to publi- 
cation. It was much easier for a man to sit down and attach a 
ticket to every object in his cabinet which his ignorance sug- 
gested might be new, and await his chance of claiming his 
names for such of them as some patient and thorough student 
should prove to be actually new, than to undertake the task of 
conning all the published works in which it were likely to find 
such objects noticed. In this country, we have indeed, from 
the destitution of books on natural history, been compelled, per 
force, to risk something, or do nothing. But this should have 
rendered us doubly cautious in imposing names, and ever ready 
to retract them when they are proved to be but synonyms, rather 
than be tempted by the idea, that no one is so likely to be 
