520 - Biological Nomenclature. [ August, 
The differences of opinion which have arisen, are chiefly in 
matters of detail and intrinsically of very slight importance. 
One of the most serious in its effect upon nomenclature is that 
in regard to what names shall be considered as really binomial ; 
another as to what is necessary to eee establish a name in 
order that if prior to any other it may be-accepted as properly 
proposed; and most of all as to the te to be adopted as that 
of the beginning of binomial nomenclature. This latter question, 
as to facts, on m Spa of De Candolle, stands as follows : 
A series of rules for nomenclature was to some extent fore- 
shadowed by tauibas in his Fundamenta Entomologia of 1736. 
These rules were first definitely proposed in the Philosophia botani- 
ca, which appeared in 1751. These rules, however, related almost 
exclusively to the generic name or nomen genericum. In 1745, 
he had employed for the first time a specific name (nomen triviale) 
composed of one word, in contradistinction to the polynomial 
designation of a species (nomen specificum) which was previously 
the rule among naturalists. That which now seems the most 
happy and important of the Linnzean ideas, the restriction of the 
specific name as now understood, seems to have been for a long 
time only an accessory matter to him, as the xomina trivialia are 
barely mentioned in his rules up to 1 765. 
In 1753, in the /ucrementa botanices, Wee ty expatiating on the 
reforms which he had introduced into the science, he does not 
even mention the binominal nomenclature. ti the Systema Nature, 
Ed. X, 1758, for the first time the binominal system is consistent- 
ly applied to all classes of animals and plants (though it had been 
partially adopted by him as early as 1745), and hence many 
naturalists have regarded the tenth edition as forming the most 
natural starting point. The system being of slow and intermittent 
growth, even with its originator, an arbitrary starting point is 
necessary. In the twelfth edition (1766-68), numerous changes 
and reforms were instituted, and a number of his earlier specific 
names were arbitrarily changed. In fact, Linnzeus never seems 
to have regarded specific names as subject to his rules. 
The last was recommended by the British Committee as the 
starting point. They have since, however, receded to the extent 
of admitting to recognition some ichthyological works printed 
between the dates of the tenth and twelfth editions. 
The circular with the appended replies is as follows: 
QUESTIONS TO WHICH AN ANSWER IS DESIRED. 
I. What date shall be taken as the commencement of the 
inomial era in nomenclature? For Ed. X,18. Ed. 
XII,17. 1736,1. Botanists, 1753,2. No answer, 7. 
Il. Shall phrases composed of two words which may ap- 
apent in the publications of naturalists whose works 
