108 Zoological Nomenclature. 
r. Specific names raised into generic.—It has vr estcnipoe been the prec 
in subdividing an old genus to give the lesser genera so formed, the nam 
of thei r respective typical ae Our Rule 13 pid See ae the form ninth 
new generic name in such cas Spce we Sagieopy) wish to state our objections 
to the practice altogether. Pane ider that the original specific 
a should as far as possible be baa aped, both on the grou unds of Rena 
to thei ania and of practical — to naturalists, we would strongly 
lame from the further continuance of a practice which is eset in 
itself, and which involves the maeeniky of altering old names or making new 
0 
We have now pointed out the pee —_ and shoals which lie in the 
path of the nomenclator; and it be seen that the navigation through 
them is by no means easy. The ta i ns constructing a language which shall _ 
n the 
elegance on the other, is not to be ieebastderatili cndlentahann by unqualified 
r nomenclature presents but too many flaws inelegancies 
m 
their aah ° the ag ages in which zodlogy. shall be stu 
we, and Subfamilies in ine.]—The practice sug- 
gented it in the dieses seaposit on has been adopted by many recent authors 
and its ae and convenience is so great that we strongly recommend 
its universal use 
It is recommended that the assemblages of genera, 
termed Jamilies, should be uniformly named by adding the 
termination, ide, to the name of the earliest known, or most 
typically characterized genus in them ; and that their subdi- 
visions, termed subfamilies should be similarly constructed 
with the termination, in 
These words are formed by changing the last syllable of the genitive case 
into ide or ine, as Strix, Strigis, St trigid@, Buceros, Bucerotis, Bucerotide, 
not Stri. speariea my eride. 
[The a rity for a species, exclusive of the genus, to be followed by dis- 
tinctive oe on. e systematic names of zod i being still far from. 
that state of fixity which i is the olimate aim of the science, it is frequently 
ecessa 
on whose authority they have been proposed. When the same person is 
authority both for the specific and generic name, the case is er simple 
i t 
f another, some difficulty occurs. For example, the Musicapa crinita of 
Linneus Mag neg to the ac genus, nubig tg pies of Vieillot; but Swainson 
was the first to apply the specific n of Linneus to the generic one 
Vieilot kia question now arises, Whose authority is vate = quoted for the 
us crinitus? The yearns choosy tus Linn., would 
a what is ar for Linnzeus did not use the t asi," tae sai and Tyran- 
nus crinitus Vieill., is equally incorrect, for Vicillot did not adopt the name, 
crimitus. If we call it annus crinitus Sw., a wove imply that Swainson 
was the first to describe the species, and Linn ould be robbed a 
due credit. If we term it, Vieill., post ard Linn., os use a 
which, though expressing ay aM ‘and therefore not without ps 
are some ae: ot readily receive these terminations, 
and as nu amerdil other forms of fa family and subfamily names are oats y in good, 
use, a little more latitude might well be 
= 
