SOME QUESTIONS OF NOMENCLATURE. 475 



application of names by statements that the first species of the old 

 genera justified their procedure. The contention of one involves the 

 names which shall be given to the crayfishes and lobsters. 



It is evident that the fathers of zoological nomenclature never con- 

 templated such a treatment of their names, and the application of the 

 rule to their genera would result in some curious and unexpected con- 

 ditions. Let us see how some genera of Linnaeus would fare. The 

 first species of FJtoca was the fur seal; the first species of Mustela, 

 the sea otter; the first of Mus, the guinea pig, and the first of Gervus 

 was the giraffe. These are sufficient to show what incongruities would 

 flow from the adoption of the rule. 



CHOICE OF NAMES SIMULTANEOUSLY PUBLISHED. 



There is another issue of nomenclature involving many genera. In 

 the same work different names have been given to representatives or 

 stages of what are now considered the same genus. For example, 

 Lacepede, in the third volume of his "Histoire Naturelle des Poissons," 

 published two names, GepJialacanthus and Dactylopterus, the former 

 given to the young and the latter to the adult stage of the flying gur- 

 nard. GepJialacanthus appeared on page 323, and Dactylopterus on page 

 325. Dactylopterus is the name that has been generally adopted for 

 the genus, but some excellent naturalists now insist on the resurrec- 

 tion and retention of GepJialacanthus, for the reason that the latter was 

 the first given name. In connection with an analogous case, it was 

 urged that ''the law of primogeniture applies to twins." There is a fal- 

 lacy involved in such a comparison, which becomes obvious enough on 

 consideration. In the case of twins, the birth of one precedes that of 

 the other by a very appreciable interval of time. But in the case of 

 names appearing in the same volume (issued as a whole) the publica- 

 tion is necessarily simultaneous. It is therefore, it appears to me, 

 perfectly logical to take the most appropriate name, or to follow the 

 zoologist who first selected one of the names. In the case of Dactylop- 

 terus there would be the further advantage that the current nomencla- 

 ture would not be disturbed. 



It is interesting to note that those who have acted on the principle 

 just condemned do not feel called upon to accept the first species of a 

 genus as its type. 



MAJOR GROUPS AND THEIR NOMENCLATURE. 



Another subject to which I would invite your attention is the amount 

 of subdivision of the animal kingdom which is expedient, and the 

 nomenclature of such subdivisions. 



Linnaeus only admitted four categories — class, order, genus, and 

 species. These sufficed for most naturalists during the entire past 

 century. Only one naturalist — Gottlieb Conrad Christian Storr — went 



