328 REV. T. R. R. STEBBI]Sr& ON 



matter before us, it is desirable that we should clearly under- 

 stand the source of its authority, its methods of arriving at its 

 decisions, and therein especially the rights and opportunities 

 reserved for appellants under its truly imperial jurisdiction. 

 There is an old opinion that " Greneral Councils may not be 

 gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes," 

 and, further, that when they be gathered together they are still 

 liable to make mistakes. Among the men who have taken a 

 leading part in the International Congress of" Zoology there are 

 many who might be rightly claimed as princes of science, and 

 none, I expect, who would wish to make any claim to being 

 infallible. So far, then, the authority, if in a large measure 

 self -constituted, has an origin and status with which English- 

 speaking people are not likely to find very much fault. On the 

 whole we think more of what is well done than of what is 

 logically done. Linnaeus himself was a prince only by the divine 

 right of genius, and his system of nomenclature won acceptance, 

 not by act of parliament, but by virtue of sweet reasonableness. 

 In dealing with the Liunean system, it would have been a 

 courteous act, I think, to have invited the various Linnean 

 Societies spread over the globe, and especially the Linnean 

 Society of London, to take a prominent part. As things have 

 turned out, for reasons not very easy to comprehend, G-reat 

 Britain has been left in its favourite insular position, without 

 any practical voice in the latest proposals. There is, happily, 

 no need for any punctilious jealousy on this score, since it is 

 still open to us to offer whatever criticisms and recommendations 

 we please, with an excellent prospect of their commanding- 

 respectful attention. 



It has long been agreed — and may we not say very wisely 

 agreed? — that zoology and botany should be independent in 

 respect to generic names, so that a name will not be invalidated 

 in the one because it happens to have been earlier used in the 

 other. The double use of course is merely permitted, not 

 commended or recommended. The zoologist is not encouraged 

 to found a new genus Mosa for a camel or a skunk, when he has 

 good authority for believing that they would smell as sweet by 

 any other name. But apart from, or even including, this one 

 article of generic designation, would it not be convenient that 

 zoology and botany should have rules of nomenclature in common, 

 and should use the same symbols for identical purposes ? 



