CONSTRUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC NAMES IN PALJEONTOLGY. 



g. Personal names. — 



g. Specific names derived from persons —So long as these complimentary designations are 

 used with moderation, and are restricted to persons of eminence as scientific zoologists, 

 they may be employed with propriety in cases where expressive or characteristic words 

 are not to be found. But we fully concur with those who censure the practice of naming 

 species after persons of no scientific reputation, as curiosity dealers (e. g. Caniveti Boisson- 

 eauti), Peruvian priestesses (Cora amazilia), or Hottentots (Klassi). 



h. Generic names derived from persons.— Words of this class have been very extensively 

 used in botany, and therefore it would have been well to exclude them wholly from 

 zoology, for the sake of obtaining a memoria technica by which the name of a genus would 

 at once tell us to which of the kingdoms of nature it belonged. Some few personal 

 generic names have, however, crept into zoology, as Cuvieria, Mulleria, Rossia, Lessonia, etc., 

 but they are very rare in comparison with those of botany, and it is, perhaps, desirable 

 not to add to their number.— Recommendations. 



Another objection to this kind of name, so many of which have crept 

 into palseontological nomenclature of late years, is that they yield with 

 difficulty, in many instances, to the plastic hand of the classical linguist. 

 • The collector or student who stands godfather to a newly discovered 

 fossil, and seeks immortality for some friend or acquaintance by making 

 it his namesake, naturally wishes to keep the name as little changed as 

 possible, lest his purpose should in part fail. On the other hand the 

 classical scholar would rather see the name reduced in some degree to 

 Latin form so that it may offend the eye and ear as little as possible. 

 Between these two a contest arises, and hence we have various forms for 

 words which should be alike, as Barrandi, barrandei; Moori, moorei. 

 Perhaps in this respect it would be wisest to adopt the recommendations 

 of the British Association Committee, quoted on page xi, with a slight 

 modification, and add i for a genitive case where the name ends in a 

 consonant, in a, o or w, and ii when it ends in e, i or t y, omitting in the 

 latter case the final vowel of the name. 



h. Nouns as specific terms. — In those cases, and they are numerous, 

 where a noun is used as a specific name, no change can be made in its 

 termination. Hence, however, inconsistent it may appear to some to 

 see Orthis biloba and Orthis circulus, Productus cora and Productus 

 costatus, side by side, such combinations are accurate. It may, however, 

 be added that adjective terms are preferable, whenever possible. 



i. Inelegant names. — With the following extract we leave this part 

 of our subject: 



Names of harsh and inelegant pronunciation. — These words are grating to the ear, either 

 from inelegance of form, as Huhua, Yuhina, Craxirex, Eschscholtzia ; or, from too great 

 length, as chirostrongylostinus, Opetiorhynchus, brachypodioides, thecodontosaurus, not to mention 

 the Eualiolimnosaurus crocodUoceplialoides of a German naturalist. It is needless to enlarge 

 on the advantage of consulting euphony in the construction of our language. As a gen- 

 eral rule it may be recommended to avoid introducing words of more than five syllables. 



We have now pointed out the principal rocks and shoals which lie in the path of the 

 nomenclator, and it will be seen that the navigation through them is by no means easy. 

 The task of constructing a language which shall supply the demands of scientific accuracy 

 on the one hand, and of literary elegance on the other, is not to be inconsiderately 

 undertaken by unqualified persons. Our nomenclature presents but too many flaws and 



