264 Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 
In venturing to propose these rules for the guidance of all 
classes of zoologists in all countries, we disclaim any intention of 
dictating to men of science the course which they may see fit to 
pursue. It must of course be always at the option of authors to 
adhere to or depart from these principles; but we offer them to 
the candid consideration of zoologists, in the hope that they may 
lead to sufficient uniformity of method in future to rescue the 
science from becoming a mere chaos of words. 
We now proceed to develope the details of our plan; and in 
order to make the reasons by which we are guided apparent to 
naturalists at large, it will be requisite to append to each pro- 
position a short explanation of the circumstances which call for it. 
Among the numerous rules for nomenclature which have been 
proposed by naturalists, there are many which, though excellent 
in themselves, it is not now desirable to enforce.* The cases in 
which those rules have been overlooked or departed from are so 
numerous and of such long standing, that to carry these regula- 
tions into effect would undermine the edifice of zoological nomen- 
clature. But while we do not adopt these propositions as 
authoritative laws, they may still be consulted with advantage 
in making such additions to the language of zoology as are 
required by the progress of the science. By adhering to sound 
principles of philology we may avoid errors in future, even when 
it is too late to remedy the past, and the language of science will 
thus eventually assume an aspect of more classic purity than it 
now presents, 
Our subject hence divides itself into two parts; the first con- 
sisting of Rules for the rectification of the present zoological 
nomenclature, and the second of Recommendations for the improve- 
ment of zoological nomenclature in future. 
PART 
RULES FOR RECTIFYING THE PRESENT NOMENCLATURE, 
[Limitation of the Plan to Systematic Nomenclature. ] 
In proposing a measure for the establishment of a permanent 
and universal zoological nomenclature, it must be premised that 
we refer solely to the Latin or systematic language of zoology. 
We have nothing to do with vernacular appellations. One great 
cause of the neglect and corruption which prevails in the scientific 
nomenclature of zoology, has been the frequent and often exclusive 
use of vernacular names in lieu of the Latin binomial designa- 
* See especially the admirable code proposed in the ‘‘ Philosophia Botanica” 
of Linneus. If zoologists had paid more attention to the principles of that 
code, the present attempt at reform would perhaps have been unnecessary. 
