October 2, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



591 



canthus ; and among words sufficiently differ- 

 ent are Polyodon^ Polyodonta, and Polyodontes. 



When rules are once relaxed in this in- 

 definite manner, the way is at once open to 

 differences of opinion as to what are to be 

 considered identical or too much alike. 

 Fischeria and Fisheria appear to me to be 

 sufficiently distinct, and would be so con- 

 sidered by some who think that Polyodon, 

 Polyodonta, and Polyodontes are too nearly 

 alike. While the last three are conceded to 

 be sufficiently distinct by the German Zool- 

 ogical Society, analogous forms, as Heterodon 

 and Heterodontus, are claimed by some zool- 

 ogists to be too similar, and consequently 

 the latter prior and distinctive name of the 

 'Port Jackson shark' is sacrificed in favor 

 of the later and inapt Cestracion — a name 

 originally coined and appropriate for the 

 hammer-headed sharks, but misapplied to 

 the Australian shark. 



I agree with those who think that even a 

 difference of a single letter in most cases is 

 sufficient to entitle two or more generic 

 names so differing to stand. The chemist 

 has found such a difference not only ample 

 but most convenient to designate the val- 

 ency of different compounds, as ferricyano- 

 gen and ferrocyanogen. I am prepared 

 now to go back on myself in this respect. 

 In 1831 Prince Max of Nieuwied named a 

 bird Scapho7'hynchus, and in 1835 Heck el gave 

 the name Scaphirhynchus to a fish genus.* 

 In 1863 I used a new name (ScaphirhyjicJwps) 

 for the acipenseroid genus, and that name 

 was adopted by other naturalists. Jordan 



*In lieu of explanations of the etymology it may 

 be assumed that Scaphirhynchus was derived from 

 aKacbeid^ a digging or hoeing, and that Scaphorhynchus is 

 from GKCKpog, any thing hallowed, as a boat. (Oct., 1896.) 

 Both Scaphorhynchus and Scaphirhynchus were derived 

 from ' anafT], scapha ; pvyxog, rostrum ' by Agassiz in 

 in his Nomenclator Zoologicus, but the characters of 

 the respective genera would be better expressed by 

 the etymologies here suggested, the bird genus hav- 

 ing a bill like an inverted boat and the fish genus 

 a snout like a spade as the popular name — shovel- 

 illed sturgeon — implies. 



later considered the literal differences be- 

 tween the avine and piscine generic names to 

 be sufficient for both. I yield the point, and 

 abandon my nsbmeScaphirhynchops. But those 

 who hold to the rule in question will retain it. 



Another set of cases exhibiting diversity 

 of opinion may be exemplified. 



In 1832 Eeinhardt gave the name Triglops 

 to one cottoid genus, and in 1851 Girard 

 named another Triglopsis, Girard appar- 

 ently not knowing of Eeinhardt's genus. 

 In 1860 the later name was replaced by 

 Ptyonotus. All American naturalists have 

 repudiated the last name. 



In 1854 Girard named a genus of Ather- 

 inids Atherinopsis, and in 1876 Steindachner, 

 knowing well the name of Girard, deliber- 

 ately called a related genus Atherinops. No 

 one, as yet, has questioned the availability 

 of the later name, but one who refuses to 

 adopt Triglopsis because of the earlier Tri- 

 glops must substitute another name for 

 Atherinops. 



Who shall decide in such cases, and what 

 shall be the standard ? 



MAKING OF NAMES. 



It was long ago recognized, even by Lin- 

 naeus, that the rigor of the rules originally 

 formulated by him would have to be re- 

 laxed. Naturalists early began to com- 

 plain that the Greek and Latin languages 

 were almost or quite exhausted as sources 

 for new names, and many resorted to other 

 languages, framed anagrams of existent 

 ones, or even plaj^ed for a jingle of letters. 



Forty years ago one of the most libera-l of 

 the American contributors to such names* 

 defiantly avowed that " most of the genera 

 [proposed by him] have been designated by 

 words taken from the North American In- 

 dians, as being more euphonic than any one 

 [he] might have framed from the Greek. 

 The classic literature has already furnished 

 so many names that there are but few in- 



* Girard in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., viii., 209, 

 1856. 



