600 



SCIENCE. 



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



for the higher. Why should the name 

 Amphibia disappear and Batrachia and 

 Eeptilia usurp its place? Amphibia is a 

 far better name for the Batrachia, and in 

 every way defensible for it. The name had 

 especial relation to it originally, and it was 

 first restricted to it as a class. Why should 

 the names Sauria and Serpentes give place 

 to Lacertilia and Ophidia ? The first are 

 names familiar to all and correctly formed ; 

 the last are, at least, strangely framed. 

 Why should not Meantia be adopted as an 

 ordinal name, by those who regard the 

 Sirenids as representatives of a distinct 

 order, as did Linnseus ? Why should not 

 the ordinal names Bruta, Ferse, Glires and 

 Cete prevail over Edentata, Carnivora, 

 Rodentia and Cetacea ? If the rules formu- 

 lated by the various societies are applied to 

 those groups, the earliest names must be re- 

 vived. 



COMPLAINTS OF INSTABILITY OF NOMENCLA- 

 TURE. 



Frequent are the laments over the insta- 

 bility of our systematic nomenclature ; 

 bitter the complaints against those who 

 change names. But surely such complaints 

 are unjust when urged against those who 

 range themselves under laws. We are 

 forcibly reminded by such complaints of 

 the ancient apologue of the wolf and the 

 lamb. The stream of nomenclature has 

 indeed been much muddied, but it is due to 

 the acts of those who refuse to be bound by 

 laws or reason. The only way to purify 

 the stream is to clear out all the disturbing 

 elements. In doing so, mud that has 

 settled for a time maj^ be disturbed, but 

 this is at worst anticipating what would 

 have inevitably happened sooner or later. 

 We are suffering from the ignorance or 

 misdeeds of the past. In opposing the 

 necessary rectifications and the enforcement 

 of the laws, extremes may meet ; conserva- 

 tives and anarchists agree. But the major- 



ity may be depended upon in time to sub- 

 scribe to the laws, and the perturbed con- 

 dition will then cease to be. 



It is unfortunate that our nomenclature 

 should have been so wedded to systematic 

 zoology, and devised to express the different 

 phases of our knowledge or understanding 

 of morphological facts. Even under the 

 binomial system the disturbing element 

 might have been made much less than it is. 

 The genera of Linnseus recognized for the 

 animal kingdom were generally very com- 

 prehensive ; sometimes, as in the case of 

 Petromyzon, Asterias and Echinus, answering 

 to a modern class ; sometimes, like Testudo, 

 Hana, Cancer, Scorpio, Aranea, Scolopendra • 

 and Jidus, to a modern order, or even more 

 comprehensive group, and rarely, among 

 Vertebrates, to a group of less than family 

 value. The usage of Linnaeus for the ani- 

 mal kingdom was very different from that 

 for the vegetable kingdom. If the suc- 

 cessors of Linnseus had been content to 

 take genera of like high rank (equivalent 

 to families, for example), and give other 

 names to the subdivisions (or subgenera) 

 of such genera, which, to use the language 

 of Linnseus, should be mute, less change 

 would have subsequently resulted. But 

 (Linnseus himself leading) his successors 

 successively divided a genus, gradually ac- 

 cepting a lower and lower standard of 

 value, till now a genus is little more than a 

 multiform or very distinct isolated species. 

 Yet the change has been very gradual. It 

 began by taking a comprehensive group, 

 recognizing that the differences between its 

 representatives were greater than those ex- 

 isting between certain genera already estab- 

 lished, and therefore the old genus was 

 split up ; or it was perceived that the 

 characters used to define a genus were of 

 less systematic importance than others 

 found within the limits of the old genus, 

 and, to bring into prominence such a 

 truth, the genus was disintegrated. The 



