Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 268 
tions, which form the only legitimate language of systematic 
zoology. Let us then endeavour to render perfect the Latin or 
Linnean method of nomenclature, which, being far removed from 
the scope of national vanities and modern antipathies, holds out 
the only hope of introducing into zoology that grand desideratum, 
an universal language. 
[Law of Priority the only efectual and just one.] 
It being admitted on all hands that words are only the con- 
ventional signs of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain 
its end effectually by being permanently established and generally 
recognised. This consideration ought, it would seem, to have 
checked those who are continually attempting to subvert the 
established language of zoology by substituting terms of their own 
coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist 
in confounding the name of a species or group with its definition ; 
and because the former often falls short of the fulness of expres- 
sion found in the latter, they cancel it without hesitation, and 
introduce some new term which appears to them more character- 
istic, but which is utterly unknown to the science, and is therefore 
devoid of all authority.* If these persons were to object to such 
names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, &c., in cases 
where they fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or 
should complain of the names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that 
they were devoid of meaning, and should hence propose to change 
them for more characteristic appellations, they would not act 
more unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they do in the 
case before us; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what 
conventional sound we agree to designate an individual object, 
provided the sign to be employed be stamped with such an autho- 
rity as will suffice to make it pass current. Now in zoology no 
one person can subsequently claim an authority equal to that 
possessed by the person who is the first to define a new genus or 
describe a new species ; and hence it is that the name originally 
given, even though it may be inferior in point of elegance or 
expressiveness to those subsequently proposed, ought as a general 
principle to be permanently retained. To this consideration we 
ought to add the injustice of erasing the name originally selected 
by the person to whose labours we owe our first knowledge of the 
object ; and we should reflect how much the permission of such 
a practice opens a door to obscure pretenders for dragging them- 
selves into notice at the expense of original observers. Neither 
can an author be permitted to alter a name which he himself has 
once published, except in accordance with fixed and equitable laws. 
* Linneus says on this subject, “ Abstinendum ab hac innovatione que 
nunquam cessaret, quin indies aptiora detegerentur ad infinitum.”’ 
