314 , MR. P, I. SCLATER ON THE [ Mar. 3, 
capensis, and a Tortoise not found in Chili Testudo chilensis. I 
have consequently refused to use such names, preferring accuracy 
to priority. But the American Code, it is quite clear, does not 
permit such alterations, and I fear that the German Code under the 
explanations of Sect. V. is against my views upon this point. 
On this subject, however, the original Stricklandian Code (see 
explanations to Sect. X.) clearly rules in my favour. 
(3) There is one point which seems not to have been touched 
upon in any of the Rules hitherto promulgated. It is the last to 
which I shall call your attention this evening. That is, the expe- 
diency of rejecting ambiguous specific names in certain instances. 
An example of such a case will best explain my meaning. I will 
take a well-known one, but there are many like it. Lepus timidus 
of Linneus was probably intended by the learned Swede as the 
epithet of the Mountain or Variable Hare of Northern Europe. 
It has, however, until recently, been almost universally applied to 
the common lowland species, Lepus europeus of Pallas’. Recent 
authors having discovered the error have proposed to re-impose 
the name of Lepus timidus upon the Northern species=Lepus 
variabilis, Pallas. I maintain, however, that, under the circum- 
stances that have happened, Lepus timidus can no longer be used 
asaname atall. It is perfectly useless as a specific designation, 
because when Lepus timidus is spoken of (whether ‘Linn.’ be 
added to it or not) nobody can tell without further information 
whether it is intended to indicate Lepus variabilis or Lepus ewropeus, 
Under such circumstances the specific term timidus ought to be 
considered as “void for ambiguity” and the next given name 
“variabilis” of Pallas employed in its place. There are many 
other cases of the same sort, but of course such rejections should 
be sanctioned only in extreme cases, when it is certain that the 
retention of the older name will lead to confusion. 
The Canon that I should suggest on this subject would be some- 
thing as follows :— 
Specific names which have been applied habitually to one species 
but can be proved to be properly applicable to another may be 
superseded by the next oldest applicable term in both cases. 
Before concluding this address I will say a few words as to my 
views on the vexed subjects of trinomials. That subspecies actually 
exist in nature cannot, I think, be denied by anybody who believes 
in the origin of species by descent. Nearly all forms of animal 
life, which have a wide distribution, show differences when 
individuals from the two extremes of the range of the species are 
compared. These differences are in many cases united by inter- 
mediate forms which occur in the more central portion of the range. 
“Subspecies ” appears to me to be an excellent term to designate 
the slight differences exhibited in these cases, far better than 
‘« climatic ” or “ geographical ” variety, which is often used for them. 
We are thus enabled to retain “variety” for abnormal variations 
from the typical form (such as albinisms &c.) which occur without 
1 « See Bell's ‘ British Quadrupeds,’ p. 881 (1884); Blasius, Wirkelth, Europ, 
p. 412 (1857). 
