314 MB. r. L. SOLATEE ON THE [Mar. 3, 



capensis, and a Tortoise not found in Chili Testudo cMlensis. I 

 have consequently refused to use such names, preferring accuracy 

 to priority. But the American Code, it is quite clear, does not 

 pennit 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. Lepits timidi(s 

 of Linnaeus 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, Lejms europcms of Pallas '. Eecent 

 authors having discovered the error have proposed to re-impose 

 the name of Lepus timidits upon the Northern species =Z«pt(S 

 varialilis, Pallas. I maintain, however, that, under the circum- 

 stances that have happened, Lepus iimidus can no longer be used 

 as a name at all. 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 varialilis or Lepus europants. 

 Under such circumstances the specific term iimidus 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 superseded by the next oldest applicable term in both cases.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 excelleufc 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 



> "See Bell's 'BiititliQuaclnirccls.' p. K31 (1884): Blaeiii?,WirbeUb.Europ. 

 p. 412 (1857). 



