584 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 95. 



had uniformly and consistently applied the 

 binomial nomenclature to plants as well as 

 animals, fishes and birds.* It has been 

 also urged that C. IST. Lang (Langius),t in 

 1722, used the binomial nomenclature for 

 shells. I have not been able to confirm 

 either statement, and therefore have to side 

 with the great majority who accord to Lin- 

 naeus the credit of that achievement. 



Almost all the naturalists of the United 

 States accept 1758 as the starting- time for 

 nomenclature, and now most of the natural- 

 ists of Europe take the same view. But 

 the English generally accept 1766 for the 

 commencement of their orismology. It was 

 ' after much deliberation ' that the Commit- 

 tee of the British Association for the Ad- 

 vancement of Science determined on the 

 edition of 1766. It was only because that 

 edition was Hhe last and most complete 

 edition of Linne's works, and containing 

 many species that the tenth did not,' that it 

 was so selected— surely an insufficient rea- 

 son. A principle was subordinated to an 

 individual. 



Logically, the actual period for the com- 

 mencement of the binomial nomenclature 

 should be when the rules for that nomen- 

 clature were distinctly formulated ; and that 

 was 1751, when the ' Philosophia Botanica' 

 was first published. Practically, however, 

 it makes little difference for most classes, J 

 whether we take that date or 1758, when 

 the next succeeding edition of the ' Sys- 

 tema ' was published. But it does make 

 much difference whether we take the tenth 



* Crie (Louis) Pierre Belon et la nomenclature 

 Wnaire. Eev. Sc, xxx., 737-740, 9 Dec, 18P2. 



t My efforts to see a copy of Lang's ' MetLodus 

 nova Testacea marina in suas Classes, Genera, et Spe- 

 cies distribuendi ' (Lucern., 1722J have not been 

 successful. Maton and Rackett say that ' he is the 

 first whose generic characters are founded on com- 

 modious distinctions, ' but expressly state that ' there 

 are no trivial names.' (See Trans. Linn. Soc, vii., 

 1 56, 157. ) He may have properly appreciated genera. 



X Arachnology vFOuld be most affected, for Clerck's 

 work was published in 1757. 



or twelfth edition. There is really no good 

 reason for keeping Linnseus on that lofty 

 pedestal on which he was enthroned by his 

 disciples of a past century. His work does 

 not justify such an elevation. In every de- 

 partment of zoology contemporaries excelled 

 him in knowledge and in judgment. May 

 we not hope that, ultimately, this truth will 

 be recognized, and the tenth edition uni- 

 versally accepted for the first work of the 

 new era ? 



TRIVIAL NAMES. 



The binomial system has come into prom- 

 inence through a sort of developmental pro- 

 cess. Although now generally regarded as 

 the chief benefaction conferred by Linnseus* 

 on biology, it was evidently considered by 

 him to be of quite secondary importance. 



The first extensive use of it occurs in the 

 'Pan Suecicus,' published in 1749, where 

 the author mentions that to facilitate the 

 recording of his observations he had used 

 an 'epithet' in place of the difiTerential 

 character.! It was thus a mere economical 

 device for the time being. 



In the ' Philosophia Botanica ' he also 

 treats it as a matter of trivial importance. 

 He distinguishes between the specific name 

 and the trivial. 



His specifie name corresponds to what we 



* Linnseus himself did not claim this as an improve- 

 ment in his account of the advancement he had ef- 

 fected in science. 



t ' ' Possumns nunc ultra duo millia experimenta 

 certissima exhibere, quse saepe decies, immo ssepe bis 

 decies sunt iterata. Si autem sumamus FiiOKAM 

 SUECICAM ITolmice, 1745, & ad quamlibet herbam, ut 

 chartse parcatur, nomen adponimus genericum, nu- 

 merum Florse Suecicse & epitheton quoddam loco dif- 

 ferentiae, negotium in compendium facile mittitur." 

 Pan Suecicus, pp. 228, 229. 



This thesis is attributed to Nicolaus L. Hessel- 

 gren in some bibliographies, and naturally so, as it 

 bears his name in the title ; but Linnseus probably 

 did not claim more than his own in claiming the au- 

 thorship, although Hesselgren apparently wrote part 

 of it himself. It is sometimes dilficult exactly to fix 

 the authorship in the case of some of the old theses. 



