25 
whom the term speciesmonger certainly can not be applied, who 
desire to see the name of the author attached to the name of 
his species, since i6 suggests to those unacquainted with syste- 
matic literature the place in which the original description may 
possibly be found. On the other hand, there is no room for 
doubt that it is this continual repetition of authors' names that 
leads a certain class of minds to suppose that there is some ho- 
nour and glory to be gained by attaching new names to inno- 
cent animals and plants. This vanity is at the bottom of much 
hurried and imperfect work, the disgusting race for priority, 
and of the desire disinter longburied names, The suggestion 
that a date should be attached to the names is not open to the 
same objection as is affixing authors” names, while it is just as 
likely to be of service to the ordinary naturalist, since he can 
ab once turn to the name in the Zoological Record for that year. 
Of course, it would be impossible to give so exact a date as 
Professor Herrera gives in the instance he quotes; at the same 
time if the custom were adopted, we should probably be better 
“able to insist on authors and editors giving the correct date of 
their publications, which is ab present an exceedingly difficult 
matter to determine. The suggestion, therefore, striles us as 
an excellent one, and we may point out that a slight extension 
of it might have the further effect of steadying nomenclature, 
since two names that were the same so far as their orthography 
was concerned could be adequately distinguished by means of 
the date. This is, we believe, the very practical plan that is 
pursued by the Kennel Club, the only condition being that the 
same name shall not be used twice within five years. If zoolo- 
gists are not above taking a hint from the kennel and the cour- 
se, it is possible that in some such suggestions as these We may 
find a way out of all our troubles. 
“Natural Science.” London, August 1896. 
Rép. Quest. His:. Nat. d. 
