1872. ] 275 
name must be a substantive ; the specific name is either a pure adjective (as Cara- 
bus awratus), or a substantive in apposition with the generic name (as Ptinus fur), 
or in the genitive case (as Dorcadion Spinole).’? Such, at least, was the view of 
the Dresden Congress of 1858. See Berlin. Entom. Zeitsch., ii, Appendix, p. xi). 
According to Dr. Sharp, “ the natural course of nomenclature is this—a name 
is given to a species...... the generic noun is a mere secondary affair...... this latter 
being really much more adjectival than the specific noun.” According to Linné, 
the generic name must be fixed, before we attempt to form a specific name; “ the 
latter without the former is like the clapper without the bell.’ The name of the 
‘genus being established, the species may be marked by adding to the generic name 
“a single word taken at will from any quarter,’ 7. e., any casual or arbitrary ap- 
pellation. See the Philosophia Botanica, which, though containing many capricious 
and unnecessary rules of nomenclature, is deserving of more consideration than it 
appears to receive at the present day. 
The binary nomenclature then denotes an object by the generic and specific 
names ; neither the generic name alone, nor the specific name alone, is the name 
of the object; it is the two together that constitute the name. And of the two, 
I, in opposition to Dr. Sharp, but in accordance with Linné, the founder of the 
system, hold that the generic is the primary and the species the secondary name. 
The species is the unit for classificatory purposes, but the genus is, in the binary 
system, the unit or base of nomenclature. The genus is, for the purpose of nomen- 
clature, a unit, even though it include many species; its name is a noun substantive 
of the singular number, whilst all the higher groups have plural names. 
A bad habit has sprung up amongst Entomologists,* of using the trivial name 
without the generic—against which I take this opportunity of protesting. Thus, I 
frequently see lists of desiderata, or reports of captures, including (say) urtice or 
typhe, littoralis or rhododactylus. How in the world is any one to know whether 
the insect intended is a butterfly, a beetle, ora bug? Is the urtice in qnestion a 
Vanessa, Spilosoma, or Habrostola, a Brachypterus or Ceuthorhynchus, or a Phygadi- 
cus? is the ‘typhe a Nonagria, Donacia, Chilacis, Telmatophilus, or Mesoleptus ? is 
the littoralis a Leucania or a Sericoris, a Pogonus or a Pederus, a Cercyon, a Silpha, 
or a Stenus ? is the rhododactylus a Pterophorus or a Phleophthorus ? 
To tell me that niger, when used as a specific name, “indicates a certain 
definite object,” is untrue, if the specific name be divorced from the generic name. 
If we had a mononymic system, in which the same word was never applied to two 
diflerent objects, then the specific name would indicate a certain definite object ; 
but as, in the binominous system, the same specific name may be repeated any 
number of times provided it comes not twice in the same genus, it is simply illusory 
to say that the word niger, by itself, indicates any definite object at all. Which 
does it indicate? Gobius niger?  Hyoscyamus niger? Hemiteles niger? or 
Pterostichus niger ? a fish, a plant, or an insect ? or what? 
“The two words Lycena Minimus are analogous (says Dr. Sharp) to the two 
words Yew tree (or rather, Tree yew) in ordinary language.” I submit that they 
are nothing of the sort. “Tree” is no part of the name of the Yew, any more 
than Insectum is part of the name Lycena. “Tree” is not the name of a genus, 
like Lycena; and “yew” is not a specific name, like Minimus. “Yew” is itself 
* ? Collectors.—EDs. 
