Geology and Natural History. 383 
confined to the binomial system of nomenclature, or that which 
indicates species by means of two Latin words, the one generic, 
pelled to go a little further back, i.e. to the “ Museum Tessinia- 
num,” 1758, 
lished.] “Previous to that period naturalists were wont to indicate 
ought not, therefore, in any instance to supersede the bino al 
by Linn Nothi 
designations imposed geus.”” can be more true, 
more , more decisive, than this argumentation, and 
yman’s eloquence falls completely to the ground before it A 
sS= 
— 
= 
: ve, he will—* consistency being the first duty of 
4 naturalist ’—be obliged to maintain their first part | , tto- 
“a, Bellis) as true generic, their second half as specific denomi- 
nations. Instead of this, Mr. Lyman, in a quite arbitrary manner, 
1n some instances prefers the first (pseudo-generic) to the secon 
(pseudo-specific) part of the need 
Ophiothriz rosula, ; 
Consequence of the practice advocated by Mr. by™ 
Spreads confusion and capriciousness in nomenclature. I have 
oubt, therefore, that it will be universally disapproved ; but I 
thon; ht it right, nevertheless, to protest against it, to prevent, if 
possible, younger naturalists from being induced to take it up. 
