OCTOBEB 18, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



495 



Salacia- (p. 79) with a species named 

 Physalis which was evidently a Physalia 

 as long understood. In the tenth edition 

 the name Holotlni-ria was substituted for 

 Salacia and no holothurians in the modern 

 sense were recognized. In the twelfth 

 edition all the species of the former edition 

 were retained, but the diagnosis was 

 altered and four holothurians of recent 

 authors were added, and thus animals of 

 different subkingdoms or branches were 

 confounded in the genus. Now, if we 

 accept the tenth edition of the ' ' Systema ' ' 

 as the starting of our nomenclature, ob- 

 viously Holothuria can not be used as it 

 has been for these many years, and it must 

 be revived in place of Physalia, notwith- 

 standing the laments of those who are dis- 

 tressed by such a change. The echino- 

 derms now called holothvirians must be re- 

 named. We can imagine the clamor that 

 will arise when some one attempts the 

 change. 



Another fault of less moment— indeed a 

 matter of taste chiefly— was committed by 

 Linne. Very numerous names of plants 

 and animals occur in the writings of vari- 

 ous ancient authors and were mostly un- 

 identifiable in the time of Linne. He 

 drew upon this store with utter disregard 

 of the consequences for names of new 

 genera. Most of the ancient names can 

 now be identified and associated with the 

 species to which they were of old applied, 

 and the incongruity of the old and new 

 usage is striking. For example, Basypus, 

 a Greek name of the hare, was perverted to 

 the armadillos; Trochilus, a name of an 

 Egyptian plover, was misused for the 

 humming birds; Amia, a name for a 

 tunny, was transferred to the bowfin of 

 North America. There was not the 

 slightest justification for such perversion 

 of the names in analogy or fitness of any 

 kind; there was no real excuse for it. At 



the commencement of Linne 's career 

 (1737), the learned Professor DiUenius, of 

 Oxford, strongly protested against such 

 misusage for plant genera, but the sinner 

 persisted in the practise till the end. 

 Naturally his scholars and later nomen- 

 clators followed the bad example, and 

 systematic zoology is consequently bur- 

 dened with an immense number of the 

 grossest and most misleading misapplica- 

 tions of ancient names revolting to the 

 classicist and historian alike. 



The influence of Linne continued to be 

 felt and his system to be adopted until 

 a new century had for sometime i*un its 

 course. Meanwhile, in France, a great 

 zoologist was developing a new system 

 which was published at length in 1817, and 

 anew with many modifications a dozen 

 years later (1829). 



GEORGES LEOPOLD CHRETIEN PREDEKIC 

 DAGOBERT CXmER 



CT€orges Cuvier (born 1769) claimed" 

 that before him naturalists distributed all 

 the invertebrates among two classes as by 

 Linne. In 1795 he published an account 

 of memorable anatomical investigations 

 of the invertebrates and ranged them all 

 under six classes: molluscs, crustaceans, 

 insects, worms, echinoderms and zoophytes. 

 This was certainly a great improvement 

 over previous systematic efforts, but from 

 our standpoint crude in many respects. It 

 was, however, necessarily crude, for natu- 

 ralists had to learn how to look as well as 

 to think. 



Cuvier later essayed to do for the animal 

 kingdom alone what Linne did for all the 

 kingdoms of nature. So greatly had the 

 number of known animals increased, how- 

 ever, that he did not attempt to give 

 diagnoses of the species, but merely named 

 them, mostly in foot-notes. His superior 

 knowledge of anatomy enabled him to in- 

 " " R6gne Animal," 1817, I., 61. 



