16 OPIIIOMASTIX JANUALIS. 



Selia, more than a century ago, publish a fine folio, with figures thai 

 are hotter than some of those we see nowadays, and shall we ignore 

 his names when they are such as may properly be taken? Jn putting 

 such a name as Ophiapholis bellis for OphiopJioUs aculeata, I think I have 

 gone too far, heeause the name belUs of Linck is used as part of a diag- 

 nosis and not as a name. I was, however, encouraged in the selection 

 by the nsage of Johnson and of Forbes. 



As to the second point, Dr. Liitken expresses great astonishment, 

 " after all that has been written." that anybody should change the 

 authority with each change in the combination of a name. For instance, 

 we have, in 1854. Opkiura nodosa Ltk. 1 afterwards attempted to show 

 that OpMura was preoccupied, and made a name. Ophioglypha, to take 

 its place ; and the question now is. Shall it he written Ophioglypha 

 nodosa Ltk. or Ophioglypha nodosa Lym. '.' Dr. Liitken has no cause for 

 astonishment. There are two parties to this question. That to which 

 he belongs insists on considering credit or honor the real reason for 

 using names of authors ; and always speaks of the "injustice" done 

 when an author's name is lost sight of. The party whose views I hold 

 maintains that nomenclature is a system of exact registration, and that, 

 with the present enormous mass and confusion of titles, no other guide 

 is possible ; and further, that the credit of a zoologist does not rest on 

 his monogram, hut on something better. Will the reputation of John 

 E. Gray be greater because his name thus appears often; or will that 

 of Lacaze-Duthiers be less heeause his appears seldom? After what I 

 have said in the Bulletin (Vol. I. p. 336, note). I can add nothing more 

 to the point than a quotation from Alexander Agassiz (American Nat- 

 uralist, Vol. V. p. 354): — 



•• The history of the present confused condition of nomenclature is 

 an interesting one ; it is the attempt to show by the binomial system. 

 not only the correct name of any animal, but, at the same time, give a 

 short historical sketch of the changes the name has undergone. The 

 name of an animal or plant is that binomial combination which it has 

 first received, let us say A /> from Linnaeus; [A (generic) b (specific)]. 

 Subsequent changes, such as the transfer of this to a different genus. 

 B, by Cuvier. are simple matters of registration, a part of the history of 

 the science, showing what Cuvier thought of the affinities of the species 

 named A b by Linnaeus. When, then, we speak of this species as I> I 

 Cuvier, we are recording his views as an investigator, and this does not 

 lessen whatever credit there may be in the original description of J. b 

 by Linnaeus. If afterwards Blainville comes and says that Cuvier 

 should have referred .1 // to the genus C of Latreille. and quotes this 

 species hereafter as t ' b Blainville. he is only recording his opinion, and 

 so on through indefinite time. Changes which the progress of sci< net render 

 necessary in the position of A b of Linnceus are or should be quoted under the 



