OF THE TEXTH EDITION OF LTNX.*:US, 123 



The question of the species is not so simple as that of the 

 genera, having been complicated by the pages and pages which 

 commentators have thought it necessary to write balancing the 

 pros and cons in each case, weighing the importance of this 

 reference or that, and deciding that such and such is the " primary 

 quotation " and should be taken as the basis of the Linnean 

 name. This balancing method, however charming an exei'cise of 

 the writer's ingenuity it may provide, is unfortunately full of the 

 pei'sonal equation, and therefore objectionable, while any method 

 which Avoi'ks automatically should be welcomed by those desirous 

 of coming to a final and impersonal decision on such points. 



The system I advocate is that Linnseiis's quotation of his own 

 earlier writings should be given an absolutely overriding im- 

 portance, and that, where these exist and can be traced back, all 

 others should be ignored. 



This principle is not an arbitrary one, but is quite reasonable. 

 For when in 1758 Linnseus gave a binomial name to an animal to 

 which he had already given in 1748 a species-number and a. 

 diagnosis (quoting it in the tenth edition), his idea of the species 

 would clearly have been formed at the earlier date, the later 

 edition only adding the binomial name. To accept as of primary 

 importance in the determination of the latter some reference 

 which was not in existence at the time of the earlier edition 

 appears to me little short of ridiculous. 



But if we take Linnaeus's own Linnean quotations — which are, 

 in most cases, of the sixth edition — we get our field of selection 

 narrowed down at once to one or two easily traceable references, 

 from which the basis of the author's original idea of each species 

 is I'eadily obtainable. 



So important did Linn?eus himself think the sixth edition that 

 practically every species of Mammal in it is quoted in the tenth, 

 and that merely by its page and number, as if that were the one 

 edition to which attention should be paid. 



Curiously enough, this does not seem to be the case in other 

 groups than Mammals, the references to the sixth edition being 

 omitted, and primary stress laid on the ' Fauna, Suecica.' 



With regard to type localities, I have made every effort to 

 identify the places from which the specimens came that were the 

 original bases of Linn?eus's names. His own statements of 

 habitat ai'e for the most part too vague to be of any use, while 

 accepting them literally would sometimes lead to grotesque errors, 

 such as the assertion, based on Linnseus's ''Hub. in Indiis" that 

 " some Indian Armadillo " (!) should be taken as the basis of 

 Dasypus septemcinctus. " In Indiis," in fact, hardly amounts to 

 more than a statement that the species is exotic. 



But many localities can be settled from the authors quoted, as, 

 for example, in the case of Marcgrave, on whose descriptions * 

 Linnjevis's names for a large number of the commoner Brazilian 



* ■ HistoriiT Rcrum Xaturalium/ Braft.ilitc, 16i8. 



