392 B.C. 
438 MELVILL: THE PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE. 
serials, have abounded on the subject. It is evident that I am 
alluding to the law of Priority as affecting Zoological Nomen- 
clature. Our great dramatist says: ‘‘What’s in a name ?” and 
this quotation, if somewhat hackneyed, is no doubt true in a 
sense as applied to nomenclature. 
I.—HIsToORICAL SKETCH AND SUMMARY OF PRE-LINNEZAN 
AUTHORS. 
It will be, I think, well to trace briefly and yet succinctly, 
the gradual growth of the study of the science of Malacology 
from the earliest times, giving cursory mention of the leading 
writers on the subject, until the time of Linnzeus. 
Genera were more or less recognized by many of the 
pre-Linnzan writers, but till the time of Lang, 1722, each species 
was designated by a description, couched in general words, 
often lengthy, and forming a sentence by itself, and although 
generic terms were more stable, there was no actual recognized 
form of arrangement, and authors altered, annulled, or super- 
seded the work of their predecessors without let or hindrance. 
Scientific nomenclature therefore, by degrees, lapsed into a 
condition of chaos. 
With the introduction, however, of the binary system, 
trinomial under very especial circumstances, e.g., Cypriea caput 
serpentis, Auricula auris Mide, matters assumed at once a less 
complex phase, and the brevity and convenience of the system 
caused its universal adoption throughout ‘the civilized world, 
and at once raised the great Carl von Linné to the pinnacle 
of fame, from which he will never be deposed. 
ARISTOTELES, in the fourth century before the Christian 
era, the celebrated philosopher, whose Mecenas was no less a 
personage than Philip and, subsequently, his son Alexander, 
of Macedonia, may be said to be the father, systematically 
speaking, of Malacology, as of other natural sciences, but 
J.C., viii., Oct., 1897. 
