Remarks on Zoological Nomenclature. 21 



Let us examine this pernicious practice a little further. La- 

 marck first framed and characterized the genus Ampullaria. 

 Sowerby gave it a different extent by adding the cornu-arietis, 

 and would thus have been entitled to it until it appertained to 

 Guilding* by the withdrawal of the same species to form his 

 genus Ceratodes, although this removal restored the genus to the 

 Lamarckian standard. The right of possession, however, is not 

 recognized under -barbarian laws; consequently, the discovery 

 and withdrawal of Ampullacera entitled Q,uoy to the spoils, un- 

 til they fell into the hands of Swainson by the restoration of 

 Montfort's deposed genus Lanistes ; but as it is uncertain whether 

 this should or should not have been done, and as the reigning 

 authority must differ according to the different views entertained 

 of the succession, added to the uncertainty attendant upon revo- 

 lutionary proceedings, the genus Ampullaria has fallen into a 

 state of anarchy, without authority or patron, the prey to dissen- 

 tient claimants ; and all this after it had been clearly established 

 by Lamarck, who still lives in his works, and in the grateful 

 remembrance of those who appreciate his merits. He is still 

 cited for his genus, but this toleration will be revoked the mo- 

 ment it is conceded to be just to assume the original genus, as 

 well as the subdivisions, when it becomes necessary to divide a 

 group. Some authors appear to possess a monomania on the 

 subject of having their names attached to the species of antece- 

 dent authors, undisturbed by the thought that the time may 

 come when every species will be so well known as to require no 

 citation, and the names of the proposers of species of almost as 

 little account as the lists in a city directory. 



It would be well perhaps, to add a section to rule 10, (p. 4,) 

 as follows : — Bui the author who merely proposes the change, 

 like the corrector of a typographical error, is not entitled to the 

 citation of the genus and species. If the original author be not 

 entitled to it, it belongs to the world at large (autoram). If this 

 rule could be adopted, or depended upon by describers, the del- 

 uge of personal and geographical names would be stopped, as 

 they are imposed from the fear that any suitable adjective may 

 have been already (perhaps simultaneously) appropriated in some 

 other portion of the world. It appears an injustice to those who 



* It is not material to my argument whether he or Quoy has priority. 



