462 SOME QUESTIONS OF NOMENCLATURE. 



In the Philosophia Botanica he also treats it as a matter of minor 

 importance. He distinguishes between the specific name and the 

 trivial. 



His specific name corresponds to what we would call a diagnosis 

 (nomen specificum est itaque differentia essentialis) ; his trivial name 

 is what would now be called the specific. 1 It is merely suggested that 

 trivial names may be used as in his Pan Suecicus, and should consist 

 of a siugle word taken from any source. 2 



This system was fully carried out in the succeeding editions of the 

 Systeina Naturae. Both names were then given — the nomen specificum 

 after the number of the species, under each genus, and the nomen 

 triviale before the number, in the margin. 



Linn.eus placed little store on the trivial names, and accredited such 

 to old botanists; but he took special credit for specific names (or diag- 

 noses), claiming that none worthy of the title had been given before him. 3 



DRACONIAN LAWS. 



For generic nomenclature a Draconian code was provided by Linnaeus 

 and Artedi. It is now a maxim of good legislation that excessive sever- 

 ity of law is apt to defeat the object sought for, and the tendency of 

 civilization is to temper justice with mercy. So has the tendency 

 of scientific advancement been toward a mitigation of the Linnaean 

 code. Nevertheless, its severity is more or less reflected in later codes — 

 even the latest — and therefore a review of some of those old canons 

 will not be entirely a resurrection of the dead, and may contain a 

 warning for the future. 



In exclusiveness for generic names Linnaeus and Artedi went far 

 ahead of any of the moderns. They provided that no names were 

 available for genera in zoology or botany which were used in any other 

 class of animals or plants, or even which were used for minerals, tools, 

 weapons, or other instruments, or even places. 4 



J 257. Nomen specificum legitimum plantam ab omnibus congeneribus (159) distin- 

 guat; Triviale autem nomen legibus etiamnum caret. — Phil. Bot., p. 202. 



2 Nomina Trivialia forte admitti possunt modo, quo in Fane suecico usus sum; 

 coustarent hsec 



Focabulo unico; 



Yocabulo liber e undequaque desumto. 



Ratione bac prsecipue evicti, quod differentia s;rpe longa evadit, ut nou ubique 

 commode usurpetur, & dein mutationi obnoxia, novis detectis speciebus, est, e. gr. 



Pyrola [5 sp.] 



Sed iiomina Trivialia in hoc opere seponimus, de differentia uuice solliciti. — Pb. 

 Bot , pp. 202, 203. 



3 Trivialia erant antecessorum & maxime Trivialia erant antiquissimorum Botani- 

 corum nomina. 



Character Naluralis speciei est IJescripiio ; Character vero Essentialis 82ieciei est 

 Differentia. 



Primus incepi Nomina specifica Essentialia condere, ante me nulla differentia digna 

 exstitit.— Ph. Bot., p. 203. 



^Nomina piscium generica, qua; quadrupedibus pilosis, avibus, ampbibiis, insectis, 

 plantis, miueralibus, instruments opificum, etc., communia sunt, omnino deleautur. 

 Linn. Fund. 230.— Art. Pb. Ich., § 193. 



