ZOOLOGY. 437 
no power whatever to enforce the laws it might make, and could 
not be expected to put an end to discussion on these points. The 
knot must be untied, not cut. 
2nd. That the binomial system of nomenclature should not be 
arbitrarily considered to have commenced at any given date; but 
that recognisable names in all works in which this system is 
methodically employed should be used according to the rule of 
priority. 
3rd. That it is not necessary to suppress a generic name in zo- 
ology because it has been previously used in botany (or vice versa) ; 
but that it is much to be regretted that any generic name should 
thus be in double use, and it should always be made a matter of 
reproach to an author that he has committed an act of this nature. 
4th. That names must be Latin to the extent that renders them 
capable of being written or used in scientific Latin; but that 
classical emendations beyond this are entirely inadmissible ; no 
line except this can be drawn between emendation, alteration, and 
total suppression. The laws of classical languages bave per se, 
no more right over scientific nomenclature than has the Hindoo 
language, As regards the much talked-of ‘Amphionycha know- 
nothing? it should be latinised in the simplest manner, as 
Amphionycha knownothinga ; and I would further suggest that its 
barbarian author be well hissed whenever he ventures to show his 
“ar somebody else should do it. 
Sth. That as regards placing an author’s name after a genus, 
the name so placed should be that of the author who established - 
the genus in the sense in which it is actually used. Carabus of 
