654 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XV. No 382. 



comaxochitl, Tlalacxouatl, Atonahuizpatli, 

 Tlatlauhquiehieomaeatl, Yztaeehacomacatl, 

 Copalquahuitlpatlahoae, Tlahoelilocaqua- 

 huitl, Tzinaeancuitlaquahuitl, Yztacpat- 

 lichiehipiltic and Chichictlapalezqiiahuitl. 

 Even Hernandez seems to have had a sus- 

 picion that some of these names were too 

 long to meet with general popularity out- 

 side of Mexico, for in several instances he 

 suggested more manageable abbreviations. 

 Thus chapters are not infrequently headed 

 like the following : ' De Chiehietzompo- 

 tonic, seu Tzompotonic amara ' ; ' De Coz- 

 ticcoanenepilli, seu Coanenepilli lutea ' ; 

 ' De Yztacquahxiotl, seu Quauhxiotl alba ' ; 

 ' De Tecopalquahuitl, seu Copalli nion- 

 tana.' 



But the second generic names, though 

 shorter, are no more Latin than the first, 

 and the practice of determining priority by 

 position would prevent their being taken 

 up in preference to the preceding unmodi- 

 fied designations. 



From the standpoint of some taxonomists 

 the forms of names appear of merely inci- 

 dental importance, and the tendency of re- 

 cent years has been toward the acceptance 

 of the oldest designation, no matter how in- 

 appropriate, incorrect, barbarous or fool- 

 ishly long it might be. Hybrids formed by 

 the compounding of Greek wdth Latin 

 roots, though a frequent cause of protest 

 from biologists of classical training and 

 sensibility, are really among the lesser dif- 

 ficulties, and a partial defense of them is 

 to be found in the fact that, although the 

 language of systematic biology is Latin, it 

 has continued and extended the custom of 

 the Romans in drawing freely from the 

 richer and more convenient Greek vocabu- 

 lary available for the formation of scien- 

 tific terms. But there are practical as well 

 as merely literary difficulties in connection 

 with unreasonable names, and while some 

 of these can be excluded on other grounds 

 than those of form there will remain a not 



unimportant residue of the results of past, 

 present and doubtless future ignorance and 

 lawlessness, which it seems unnecessary to 

 inflict as a permanent legacy to scientific 

 posterity. 



Whether in using hybrid and barbarous 

 names we are following in the lines which 

 Latin literature would have taken is, after 

 all, of relatively little importance. Conven- 

 ient names which can be understood readi- 

 ly and remembered easily are the object of 

 our quest. Names like Sehastianoschaueria 

 and Reichemhachmithus may be etymolog- 

 ically correct, but they are certainly not 

 convenient, and the same may be said of 

 many impersonal compounds of ungainly 

 length, such as Archispirostreptus, Ne- 

 crophlceopliagus and SyntMloborUmnplius. 

 Apparently to avoid the labor of finding an 

 unused short name, some systematists seek 

 safety in huge polysyllables which they 

 feel sure that none of their predecessors 

 can have had the hardihood to perpetrate. 

 But that these absurd creations are strung 

 out in accordance with the rules of Greek 

 grammar is scarcely a sufficient reason why 

 systematic biologists must remain at the 

 mercy of nomenclatorial indolence and fol- 

 ly. The man who named his daughter En- 

 cyclopedia Britannica was rewarded for his 

 pains by hearing the neighbors call her 

 ' Tan, ' and similar abbreviations are in 

 many instances in order among scientific 

 names. 



To avoid the numerous complications and 

 uncertainties attending the subject of ca- 

 conyms it has been suggested that names 

 be treated as arbitrary symbols outside 

 language and literature, to be preserved in 

 their original forms, typographic errors 

 and all. For such the names of Adanson 

 and Hernandez are but opportunities for 

 the display of zeal in the cause of priority. 

 Indeed, one phonetic outrage at a time is 

 evidently not enough for those who think 

 to serve science by compelling us to say 



