22 Remarks on Zoological Nomenclature. 



give the best names, that they are liable to lose the slight reward 

 for their labors indicated by a citation, through circumstances 

 beyond their control ; whilst the very worst compounds secure 

 the species to their proposers. Why should not an equal secu- 

 rity be guarantied to all ? Ex. 1. Mr. Hentz described a species 

 of Cicindela, the name might become C. hentzii, Autr., although 

 the change was proposed by Dejean. It would subserve a good 

 purpose to restrict the genitive to these cases. The original au- 

 thority might be cited with a mark (op.) indicating that he was 

 the first to publish it in a work, as a species. Ex. 2. The spe- 

 cific name was pre-occupied in Say's Sciurus macrourus ; God- 

 man, on this account, changes a letter and preserves the old 

 citation, S. macroureus, Say. Ex. 3. Haltica and Dyticus are 

 preferable to Altica and Dytiscus, but the original citation must 

 stand under either form. Hemiramphus erythrorhynchus, Le- 

 sueur, belongs to this author, notwithstanding his name stands 

 erythrorinchus. 



" 14. In writing zoological names, the rules of Latin orthog- 

 raphy must be adhered to" This has been much neglected, as 

 we find generic and specific names in use, which cannot be rep- 

 resented by the Latin alphabet. A name should not be adopted 

 which cannot be Latinized, or put into an unobjectionable shape. 

 The double n, as it occurs in English and German, is inadmissi- 

 ble in Latin ; thus Linnaeus, Fabricius, and Degeer wrote pen- 

 sylvanica, otherwise, many readers may suppose the n to be 

 double, in pronunciation. Goodenia, Goodejiovim, are faulty, 

 because the oo brings a redundant syllable. Gudenia is prefera- 

 ble. Of those cited by Dr. Gould (p. 10) he Guillouii is cer- 

 tainly indeclinable, the article is inadmissible, and if Guillous be 

 the assumed nominative, Guilloi is probably less objectionable. 

 So Petituarsii is less unsightly as a Latin word than Dupetit 

 Thouarsii. Eschscholtz is invincible, nine consonants to two 

 vowels being beyond the power of the language, and no genus 

 should be admitted which cannot be pronounced with the ordi- 

 nary power of the alphabet ; otherwise Chinese characters may 

 claim a place at some future day. The next rule is based upon 

 recent precedents. 



If A describes a new object, and B renames it without refer- 

 ence to what A had done ; he is not entitled to the citation, even 

 should the first name happen to be preoccupied. Because B 



