494 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 



genus, and in perfect harmony with those 

 employed for the distinction of the former 

 genus. Indeed, it might be properly as- 

 sumed that the ascription of the Argentina 

 Carolina to Argentina was simply a matter 

 of misplacement of a manuscript leaf, and 

 such it may be even now considered, al- 

 though the error is continued in the 

 twelfth edition, having escaped the notice 

 of Linne. 



LINN^AN NOMENCLATURE 



The code of nomenclature devised by 

 Linne was in many respects admirable, but 

 he did not provide sufficiently for the 

 principle of priority in nomenclature. He 

 set the example of changing a name given 

 by himself or by others, when he thought 

 a better one could be substituted; he also 

 felt at liberty to change the intent of a 

 genus. A few examples of many cases 

 may illustrate. 



In 1756 the name Salacia was given to 

 the Portuguese man-of-war; in 1758 the 

 name Holothuria was substituted; in 1766 

 the latter name was retained, but with a 

 very diiferent diagnosis, and for the first 

 time three holothurians in the modern 

 sense of the word were introduced. 



In 1756 the names Cenchris and Cro- 

 talophorus were used for genera, two 

 years later renamed Boa and Crotalus. In 

 1756 Artedi's name, Catodon, was retained 

 for the sperm whale, and Artedi's Phy- 

 seter mainly for the killers (Orca) ; but in 

 1758 'Physeter was taken up for the sperm 

 whale, for which it has been retained ever 

 since, except by a very few naturalists. 



In 1756 and 1758 Ophidion was used for 

 an acanthopterygian jugular fish— the 

 common northern butterfish, or gunnell, 

 now generally called P/iofe— but in 1766, 

 under the guise of Ophidium, it was trans- 

 ferred to the Apodes and primarily used 



for what is still known as the genus 

 Ophidijiwt. 



In 1756 and 1758 Trichechus was used 

 for the manatee alone, while the walrus 

 was correctly associated with the seals, but 

 in 1766 the very retrograde step was taken 

 of associating the walrus with the manatee 

 and retaining for the two the name 

 TrichecMis. Many naturalists persist to 

 the present day in keeping the name for 

 the walrus alone. 



The example thus set by the master was 

 naturally followed by his disciples. Many 

 felt at liberty to change names and range 

 of genera as they thought best and great 

 confusion resulted, which has continued 

 more or less down to this year of grace, 

 1907. 



Many of the evils which have been the 

 consequence could have been rectified if 

 the British Association for the Advance- 

 ment of Science had been logical in the 

 code (often admirable) which it published 

 in 1842. Instead, however, of accepting 

 the edition of the "Systema Nature" 

 (tenth) in which Linne first introduced 

 the binomial nomenclature as the starting 

 point, they preferred homage to an indi- 

 vidual rather than truth to a principle, 

 and insisted on the twelfth edition as the 

 initial volume of zoological nomenclature. 

 The unfortunate consequences have been 

 manifold. Such consequences are the 

 natural outcome of illogical and ill-con- 

 sidered action and must always sooner or 

 later follow. After these many years 

 almost all naturalists have acceded to the 

 adoption of the tenth edition. 



If the vertebrates were so much misun- 

 derstood by Linne, it may naturally be 

 supposed that the invertebrates were 

 equally or still less understood. Only one 

 interesting ease, however, can be referred 

 to. In the ninth edition of the "Systema 

 Naturas" Linne had a monotypic genus 



