whatever credit there may be in the original description of 4 
354 SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE. 
innumerable animals and plants previously known in each country — 
simply by their vernacular names. In the hands of Linneus it — 
was the expression of vast erudition, the statement of the — q 
ties of animals and plants, the formula for the classification of the — 
organic world as he understood it. - In the hands of his followers — 
and disciples it has become too often the end instead of the means; — j 
and, in the last years, the laws requisite for the establishment of d 
the correct name of an animal, or of a plant, have become often as a 
difficult to establish as the most intricate legal question. The — 
greater part of recent systematic works are, of necessity ?, filled n 
with pages of synonymy, for the most part taken at second hand; 
which have been handed down for years with all the errors of quo- a 
tations. It certainly is an absolute necessity that the units — 
with which zoologists work should be well defined. But has syn- 
onymy, as now understood, the value which has been given to it? ~ 
The history of the present confused condition of nomenclature is 
an interesting one; it is the attempt to show by the binomial 
system, not only the correct name of any animal, but, at the same ¥ 
time, give a short historical sketch of the changes the name has 
undergone. The name of an animal or plant, is that binomial com- 
bination which it has first received, let us say A b from Linnæus; 
[A (generic) b (specific) ]. ewe changes, such as the trans- 
fer of this to a different genus, B by Cuvier, are simple- matters 
of registration, a part of the history of the science, showing what — 
Cuvier thought of the affinities of the species named A b by Lin- 
næus. When then we speak of this species as B b Cuvier, we arè 
recording his views as an investigator, and this does not lessen 
by Linnæus. If afterwards Blainville comes and says that Cuvier ; 
should have referred A b to the genus C of Latreille and quotes 
this species hereafter as C b Blainville, he is only recording his 
progres of science render necessary in the position of Abo 
who proposes then as expressing the actual condition of our 
knowledge of the affinities of the species A b of Linneus. Un- 
fortunately the writing of the authority after such a change is often 
considered as an honor by naturalists, and much valuable time # 
lost in ransacking old books to find out incorrect combi 
which are subsequently corrected with great flourish of trumpets, 
