PREFACE. xiii 



is strictly argued, but in the specific descriptions the generic distinctions are 

 admitted. — It is not necessary to multiply facts. 



With reference to specific names I would notice only two points. I have 

 retained in my descriptions the name of the author who first named and described 

 the species, without regard to any changes which may have subsequently been 

 made in the generic names. The generic change is usually indicated by 'sp.' 

 after the author's name, or by giving his name in brackets* — ( ) ; the latter plan 

 is probably better, because simpler and might be generally adopted. Where a 

 generic name is entirely superseded by another, possessing priority over it, as, for 

 instance, Aviciila over Fteria, Maditla over Lima, the indication of the author's 

 name in brackets is not at all required. 



The practice of many zoologists, and nearly all botanists, to change the name 

 of the author with every change made in the generic determination has no found- 

 ation. The generic name has its author and so has the specific name. If we 

 describe a species, we must accept the name of the author who proposed or first 

 described the species under a specific designation. To make this rule valid, it is 

 only necessary that the specific name be published in connection with a generic 

 one, but it does not necessarily follow that the generic name should be acknowledged 

 by the subsequent author. If we reject the name of the author of a specific 

 name published in connection with a generic one, we acknowledge, besides the 

 generic and specific authorship, a third one, which is only applicable to the combi- 

 nation of both. Why scientific literature should be molested with such personal 

 vanity is really not apparent, unless scientific men do not consider general research 

 in science as common property— which it is. There is little doubt that the time 

 will come when our nomenclature will be so firmly established, that authors' 

 names will become altogether a superfluous appendage which can be dispensed 

 with, but the less the subject is complicated now, the more easily can it be dealt 

 with hereafter. 



Lastly, I have not accepted in my descriptions the system which advocates 

 as admissible a repetition of the same name as generic and specific, as, for instance, 

 Meretrix meretrlx, Gemma gemma, 8fc. I think the practice equivalent to drag- 

 ging scientific nomenclature into an absurdity. The British Association lately 

 urged the application of the rule that no names which had been used as specific 

 are admissible as generic. This was evidently done with the object of avoiding a 



* For sub-generic names I have mostly used another form of parenthesis, viz. [ ]. 



