SOME QUESTIONS OF NOMENCLATURE. 465 



We have also liad drawn up for us certain rules for the conversion 

 of Greek words into Latin, which are tinctured with more than Soman 

 severity. Thus, we are told that Greek names ending in -os should 

 always be turned into -us; that the final -on is inadmissible in the new 

 Latin, and should invariably be rendered by -urn. 



In accordance with such rules, Rhinoceros has been turned into 

 Bhinocerus, and Rhinocerotidw into Rhinoceridce. But Rhinoceros was 

 admitted into classical Latinity, and with it the. corresponding oblique 

 cases, Rhinocerotis, etc.; in fact, the word was current in the language 

 of description, satire, and proverb — as when used by Juveual for a 

 vessel made of the horn, or by Lucilius for a long-nosed man, or by 

 Martial in the jjroverbial expression, "ISTasum rhinocerotis habere;" 

 i. e., to turn the nose up, as we would say. These authorities are good 

 enough for me. 



The termination -on was also familiar to the Romans of classic times, 

 and numerous words with that ending may be found in the books of 

 Pliny. But our modern purists will have none of them ; the Greek -on 

 in the new Latin must always become -urn. For example, Ophidion was 

 the name given to a small conger-like eel, according to Pliny, and was 

 (without reason) supposed to have been applied to the genus now called 

 Ophldium; and this last form was given by Linnaeus, who eventually 1 

 refused to follow Pliny in such barbaric use of Latin. But Pliny is 

 good enough for me — at least as a Latinist. 



Another rule x^rohibits the use of such words as JEgir, Gondul, Moho, 

 Mitu, Pudu, and the like, and provides that they should have other ter- 

 minations in accordance with classical usage. But why should those 

 words be changed and surcharged with new endings? As they are, 

 they are all uniform with classical words. JEJgir has its j ustification in 

 vir, Gondul in consul, Moho in homo (of which it is an accidental ana- 

 gram), and Mitu and Pudu are no more cacophonous or irregular than 

 cornu. I therefore see no reason why we should not accept the words 

 criticised and corrected by some naturalists in their original form, even 

 if we consider the question involved as grammatical rather than one of 

 scientific convenience. 



I have thus defended some of the names of our old nomenclators, and 

 really think the rules laid down for name making were too severe. But 

 those rules were on the whole judicious, and should not be deviated 

 from by future nomenclators without good and substantial reason. 

 Even if too severe, they "lean to virtue's side." On the other hand, 

 let old names be respected in the interest of stability, even if slightly 

 misformed. 



MISAPPLIED NAMES. 



While Linnseus was so exacting in his rules of nomenclature in the 

 cases cited, in others he was extremely lax. It is due to him, directly 

 or indirectly, that our lists of genera of vertebrate animals especially 



1 At first (in tlie tenth edition) Linnaaus allowed Ophidion. 

 SM 96 30 



