EDITORIALS. IIQ 
teachings followed we should not have our tastes shocked by such 
hybrid names as Gillichthys; we should no longer have to see 
feminine adjectives coupled with masculine nouns; we should no 
longer be in doubt as to whether Alcyonaria or Halcyonaria, 
Aplodinotus or Haplodinotus was the preferable form. 
We wish, however, to make use of the paper as a text, rather than 
for a regular review. From one standpoint the appearance of this 
paper is to be regretted. There is danger of its falling into the hands 
of those who will feel it their duty to reform nomenclature in accord- 
ance with the rules there laid down and thus inflict upon a suffering 
world a new series of useless terms. There are people who cannot 
realize that our system of systematic nomenclature is not an end but 
a means, It is really the foundation of our book-keeping, and to 
change this book-keeping from day to day is far from facilitating 
actual work. We are told that the whole endeavor of the systematic 
purists is to result in permanence, but we have been waiting for this 
permanence now these many years, and, so far as we can see, it is as 
far off as ever. 
We have no fault to find with the law of priority, no fault with 
the rule that names shall be formed in consonance with the laws 
of philology. What we do find fault with is the feeling that these 
man-made laws are inviolable and the evident disinclination to use 
that best of gifts, common sense, in their application. All the world 
knows what Amphioxus is. The name is used in every paper dealing 
with its structure, but the law of priority demands that Branchiostoma 
be substituted for it. Were it possible to make the substitution, 
would there be any more permanence than if the better-known name 
be left alone? Lepidosteus is in almost world-wide use. Is perma- 
nence effected by resurrecting the fact that, in defiance of the laws of 
euphony and philology, its original form was written Lepisosteus? 
But these are not the worst cases to bother us. The most absurd 
are those changes which are based upon the law that names of similar 
Origin but of different form are in conflict, and that the later one 
must stand aside on the ground of possible misunderstanding. 
Ellobius must go because Ellobium was described first; Gymnura 
must be renamed because of possible confusion with the earlier 
Gymnurus. ‘These are little better than those cases of changes pro- 
posed because of alleged inappropriateness or inaccuracy of name. 
We who are not engaged solely in systematic. work are beginning 
to get weary with this continual shuffling and changing of names. 
We do not find that fixity which we had been led to expect. Names 
