NOMENCLATURE. 5 



studying lists of fossils merely, can have very little idea of their true biological 

 relations. This is owing to several causes, not the least of which is the unequal 

 value of specific distinctions. This being so, it follows that under the present 

 system of nomenclature comparisons by the percentage method are not of the 

 highest order of merit ; but such comparisons are still further weakened by mis- 

 takes in synonymy, which not seldom serve to aggravate the erroneous impressions 

 as to alleged differences in two series under consideration. What shall we say, 

 for instance, to a large and important group of fossils, characteristic alike of the 

 Inferior Oolite and the Lias, being referred in one case to the genus Amberleya, 

 and in the other case to the genus Eucyclus ? Nay, more, in the very collection 

 where this arrangement has been adopted, the genus Amberleya is placed under the 

 Turbinidge, whilst the genus Eucyclus is placed under the Littorinidae. Yet the 

 merest tyro in Jurassic palaeontology knows that Eucyclus is a name given by 

 Deslongchamps to a group of shells characterised, but not fully diagnosed, by 

 Morris and Lycett nearly ten years before under the name of Amberleya. 

 Whichever name we adopt the genus is the same ; to call it by the first name in 

 the Lias, and by the second name in the Inferior Oolite, is one way of making an 

 artificial gap in the geological record. Doubtless comparative lists of fossils con- 

 tained many such artificial gaps. 



Nomenclature. 



Like rates and taxes, Nomenclature is a necessary evil, but out of nomenclature 

 has grown that fearful incubus, Synonymy, which threatens at some time to over- 

 whelm us unless the Augean stable be cleansed. It is not intended in this Mono- 

 graph to attempt anything more than a kind of selective synonymy in respect to 

 the species described. No single individual nowadays can pretend thoroughly to 

 cope with synonymy. Nothing short of an international commission of experts 

 can ever do this, and we may well believe that matters are hardly ripe for such a 

 consummation at present. The dread of having to deal with this horrible night- 

 mare makes people rather shy of undertaking molluscan palaeontology, which may 

 be said to suffer from this disease more than any other branch of the tree of life. 



But genuine nomenclature itself, even when free from its terrible parasite, is a 

 subject full of difficulties. We are often and justly reminded that nomenclature is 

 not science, and in fact many of our more philosophic biologists are rather hard 

 upon nomenclature, because, as with liberty, much evil is done under its cover. 

 Returning, however, to our original position that it is a necessary evil, we must 

 endeavour to deal with it in a manner which we may hope will yield the most 

 satisfactory results. Shall we continue to put new wine into old bottles ? is the 



