96 |September, 1871. 
Mr. Lewis, in the language of a celebrated statute, “ Nolumus nomina imsectorunr 
mutare que usitata sunt et approbata.”—T. Henry Briaes, Lincoln’s Inn, July 12th 
1871. 
Systematic Zoology and Nomenclature.—The first requisite for the accurate dis- 
cussion of any subject is an appropriate nomenclature. The great influence Lin- 
nzeus exerted upon the progress of zoology is due to the universal acceptance of 
the binomial system, admirably adapted to bring order into the chaos of names of 
innumerable animals and plants previously known in each country simply by 
their vernacular names. In the hands of Linnzeus it was the expression of vast eru- 
dition, the statement of the affinities of animals and plants, the formula for the 
classification of the organic world as he undertsood it. Inthe hands of his followers 
and disciples it has become too often the end instead of the means; and, of late 
years, the laws requisite for the establishment of the correct name of an animal, or 
of a plant, have become often as difficult to establish as the most intricate legal 
question. The name of an animal or plant is that binomial combination which it has 
first received. Subsequent changes, such as the transfer to a different genus, 
are simple matters of registration. Unfortunately the writing of the authority after 
such a change is often considered as an honour by naturalists,* and much valuable 
time is lost in ransacking old books to find out incorrect combinations, which are sub- 
sequently corrected with great flourish of trumpets, as if this process advanced our 
knowledge of the affinities of the animals under discussion. No naturalist ignores 
wilfully what others have already done before him; it is generally from absolute 
impossibility to obtain the desired information ; and if the question of nomencla- 
ture were generally regarded simply as a matter of registration, it would help to 
rid our systematic treatises of a mass of useless lumber. (The rules of nomencla- 
ture generally adopted are by no means satisfactory. The exceptions constantly 
taken to their application only increase the confusion; and the attempts made by 
the British Association to recommend a set of rules for the guidance of naturalists, 
have not been successful. The recent revision of those rules shows how impossible 
it is to lay down general instructions intended to be retrospective and prospective ; 
to apply them to times of which the scientific spirit was so totally different from 
our own. All that we can, with any justice, demand, is that the original name by wiich 
a species was first baptised, should be recognised to the exclusion of all others, if it be 
possible to determine this name with accuracy.) 
The facility with which, ina new country, unknown animals can be described, 
and notoriety thus readily obtained, is a strong incentive to go on with descrip- 
tive work; not that I would, as is frequently done, deny all value to systematic 
zoology, but it should not be forgotten that the true purpose of systematic work 
must be to increase our knowledge of the relationship of animals of any special 
group already known, and serve in some way as a connecting-link in the chain of 
the various branches of zoology. Working in this spirit, systematic zoology helps 
us in our attempts to uuderstand the laws of nature; these must remain unintel- 
ligible to him who is busy with naming and classifying materials, reducing his 
science to an art, merely accumulating facts to be stored in museums, forming, as 
it were, a library of nature. To him its laws will be as inexplicable as are the laws 
of the motions of planets to one who has no knowledge of the existence of gravita- 
tion. — ALEXANDER AGassiz, in the ‘ American Naturalist’ for August, 1871 
(abstracted). 
* This remark refers more particularly to a practice much in vogue amongst some American 
naturalists, but which is happily of rare occurrence with those of Europe. ‘The species is attri- 
Daten Oy sta to the author who transferred it to its present genus, and not to the original 
escriber,— EDs. 
