20 Remarks on Zoological Nomenclature. 



to either. The first form is not objectionable, as our modern 

 names are properly indeclinable, and the addition of a Latin syl- 

 lable does not convert them into Latin words. 



Whether generic and specific names should be inflected or not, 

 must be left to future practice. An opinion appears to obtain 

 that they may be considered indeclinable, as we seldom see them 

 employed, except in their usual form ; so seldom, indeed, that 

 we are quite strangers to the plurals used by the older authors, 

 as Gilbert White's Ilirundines rustical, Hirundines apodes, or 

 Molarities, trochili. Many generic names are difficult to decline ; 

 the rapidity of composition does not allow time for examination, 

 and some respectable naturalists have not had a classical educa- 

 tion ; besides, many names are not in the dictionaries, and have 

 no corresponding rule in the grammars.* Some authors would 

 much rather reconstruct sentences, than attempt to inflect words 

 of the following character: Alligator, Selache, Gecko, Schilbe, 

 Malthe, Mene, Halicore, Erato, Ammonceratites, there being a 

 choice between four terminations for the last, including cei^as, 

 cera, and cerus. 



If the strictest justice to antecedent authors cannot be obtained 

 by practice, it must be enforced by rule. Number 3 (p. 4) has a 

 partial bearing upon this point, but it requires the addition . . . 

 with the citation of the original authors. Some of ihe Linnaean 

 genera have been drawn upon so largely, that there is literally 

 nothing left. It might be supposed that such genera as Simia, 

 Buprestis, and Lepas, had never been formed, and with the ge- 

 nus, many authors do not hesitate to appropriate the species by 

 self-citation ; and as probably no genus or group can stand exactly 

 as the great master left it, Ms name must ere long be blotted from 

 the system which owes to him its existence. The rule as it 

 stands will be of little use, if we are permitted to write Perca, 

 Cuv. instead of Perca, Lin. It may be said that the genus of 

 Cuvier is not that of Linnaeus — perhaps not ; but if the former 

 be entitled to it on this account, then is he also entitled to the 

 species ; because, although Linnaeus had a Perca Jluviatilis, it is 

 not quite the fish so named by Cuvier, as it does not belong to 

 the same genus ! 



* Is Juli a singular or plural, genitive or dative ? is it from Julus or Julis ? is 

 the latter masculine or feminine, declined like turris or lapis, should the initial 

 be 1 or J ? 



