SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE. 355 
as if this process advanced our knowledge of the affinities of the 
animals under discussion. No naturalist ignores wilfully what 
others have already done before him ; it is generally from absolute 
impossibility to obtain the desired information, and if the question 
of nomenclature were generally regarded simply as a matter o 
registration; it would help to rid our systematic treatises of a 
mass of useless lumber. * G 
But systematic Zoology used as it should be, as the connecting 
link between all the branches of sciences forming the great whole 
of Zoology has a totally different meaning. It becomes an epitome 
of years of study, the concise expression of the thoughts of the 
writer on the affinities of the animals he is discussing. System- 
atic zoologists have until lately laid claim to be recognized ex- 
clusively as zoologists, we should remember, now at least, that 
Physiology, Comparative Anatomy, Morphology, Embryology, Pal- 
seontology, Histology, Psychology and Geographical Distribution 
are as much a part of Zoology as the mere questions of classifica- 
tion and nomenclature. Great as have been the benefits derived by 
following the principles of Linnzeus we must nowadays return to 
old Aristotle and take him for our guide. The Aristotelian view 
of the whole knowledge of the life of an animal is the true con- 
ception of what Zoology should be. The convergence towards this 
broad base of Zoology, by workers in the different fields mentioned 
above, shows the necessity of some element in common to express 
the variable quantities constantly obtained from a closer and more 
accurate examination of nature. This element systematic Zo- 
ology furnishes, it gives us the quantities to make our equations. 
and when it takes this broad form is no longer a mere dry collec- 
tion of meaningless names, but becomes our interpretation of 
nature. The facility with which, in a new country, unknown ani- 
mals can be described and the notoriety thus readily obtained, is a 
strong incentive to go on with descriptive work, not that I would, 
as is frequently done, deny all value to systematic Zoology, but it 
* The rules of nomenclature generally adopted are by no means satisfactory. The 
exceptions constantly taken to their application only increase the confusion, and 
the attempts made by the British Association to recommend a set of rules for the guid- 
a N. lists ł t I ccessful. The recent revision of these rules shows 
how impossible it is to lay down general instructions intended to be retrospecti d 
Ne Ais: + 
Sah aik 
the exclusion of all others. 
pever~ Ury ? PPY ee p >. > y 
from ourown. All that we can with any justice demand is that the original name by 
which a speci first baptized, should t ized t 
if it is po ihla t, Jat i +h? sih y 
AMER. NATURALIST, VOL. V. 23 
