October 23, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



587 



persons, by this custom, being wisely taught not to 

 consider blindness or any other bodily misfortune as a 

 reproach or disgrace, but to answer to appellations of 

 ihat kind as their proper names. ' ' 



What was good enougla for the ancient 

 Eomans to bestow on the most admired of 

 their heroes is good enough for the nomen- 

 clature of our genera of animals. "We have 

 also ^examples of names of adjective form 

 used substantively for animals among clas- 

 «ic writers. Such, for example, are the 

 Aculeatus (pipe-fish), and Oculata (lam- 

 prey or nine-eyes), mentioned by Pliny. 



Linnseus himself, later, coined many 

 names having an adjective form ; and three 

 of his genera of plants of one small family, 

 so designated, occur in this region— /Sopo- 

 naria, Arenaria and Stellaria. Yet even at 

 the present day we have evidences of the 

 lingering of the old idea embodied in the 

 canon in question. 



We have also had drawn up for us cer- 

 tain rules for the conversion of Greek 

 words into Latin, which are tinctured with 

 more than Koman severity. Thus, we are 

 told that Greek names ending in -os should 

 always be turned into -us; that the final 

 •on is inadmissible in the new Latin, and 

 should invariably be rendered by -um. 



In accordance with such rules, Rhinoceros 

 has been turned into Rhinocerus, and Rhinoc- 

 erotidce into Rhino ceridce. But Rhinoceros 

 was admitted into classical Latinity, and 

 with it the corresponding oblique cases, 

 Rhinocerotis, etc. ; in fact, the word was 

 current in the language of description, sat- 

 ire, and proverb— as when used by Juvenal 

 for a vessel made of the horn, or by Lu- 

 cilius for a long-nosed man, or by Martial 

 in the proverbial expression, ' Nasum rhin- 

 ocerotis habere ' ; i. e., to turn the nose up, 

 as we would say. These autjiorities are 

 good enough for me. 



The termination -on was also familiar to 

 the Eomans of classic times, and numerous 

 words with that ending may be found in the 



books of Pliny. But our modern purists 

 will have none of them; the Greek -on in 

 the new Latin must always become -um. 

 For example, Ophidion was the name given 

 to a small conger-like eel, according to 

 Pliny, and was (without reason) supposed 

 to have been applied to the genus now 

 called Ophidium; and this last form was 

 given by Linnaeus, who eventually* refused 

 to follow Pliny in such barbaric use of 

 Latin. But Pliny is good enough for me — 

 at least as a Latinist, 



Another rule prohibits the use of such 

 words as JEgir, Gondul, Moho, Mitu, Pudu 

 and the like, and provides that they should 

 have other terminations in accordance with 

 classical usage. But why should those 

 words be changed and surcharged with new 

 endings ? As they are, they are all uniform 

 with classical words, ^gir has its justifi- 

 cation in Vir, Gondul in consul, Moho in homo 

 (of which it is an accidental anagram) and 

 Mitu and Pudu are no more cacophonous or 

 irregular than cornu. I therefore see no 

 reason why we should not accept the words 

 criticised and corrected by some naturalists 

 in their original form, even if we consider 

 the question involved as grammatical rather 

 than one of scientific convenience. 



I have thus defended some of the names 

 of our old nomenclators, and really think 

 the rules laid down for name-making were 

 too severe. But those rules were on the 

 whole judicious, and should not be deviated 

 from by future nomenclators without good 

 and substantial reason ; even if too severe, 

 they 'lean to virtue's side.' On the other 

 hand, let old names be respected in the in- 

 terests of stability, even if slightly mis- 

 formed. 



MISAPPLIED NAMES. 



While Linnaeus was so exacting in his 

 rules of nomenclature in the cases cited, in 



*At first (in the tenth edition) Linnaeus allowed 

 Ophidion. 



