MELVILL : THE PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE. 459 
‘“‘But there is a trinomial system not connected with swé- 
genera but sub-spectes. . . These sub-species belong to a 
different category from accidental varieties or sports, being 
characteristic of geographical regions where they breed true, 
and they are in fact, in the eye of the evolutionist, species 
between which the links have not been lost.” 
‘“‘ Hitherto the word variety, contracted var., has been given 
to them, and another way has been long ago preferred and used 
by some naturalists, especially Dr. Coues, the author of the 
‘Key to North American Birds.’ This plan consists in omitting 
the term var., the sub-specific term being simply added, so as 
to become an integral part of the name of the organism, which 
accordingly becomes ¢vzzomia/, or composed of three words.” 
This is, to my own mind, the most euphonious and 
proper thing todo. The addition of the true specific name 
would ensure perfect clearness and obviate such errors as have 
occurred of iate years ; for instance certain Lepzdoptera diurna, 
that are evidently only local or island races, have been 
described as entirely distinct species, without any reference to 
the name of their near ally and probably original parent, 
and thus confusion has become worse confounded. In the 
year 1888, I myself made some allusion to the subject in the 
‘“‘Survey of the genus Cyprzea,’* and advocated such a plan 
for all varieties. 
Dr. Paul Fischer,{ in his “Manuel de Conchyliologie” 
pp. 316-322, refers to the question of nomenclature, and gives 
a sketch of its history, from the time of Tournefort, 1656— 
1708, to 1887. He also gives some valuable notes on 
synonymy, as also on the laws of heredity, selection, and 
variability of species. 
In 1890 Mr. Edgar A. Smith selected for his valedictory 
address as president of this society the nomenclature of certain 
* Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Society, (4), vol. i., p. 208, 1888, 
t P, Fischer, Man. Conch. pp, 316—322, Paris, 1887, 
