266 Proposed Reform of Zoological Nomenclature. 
It is well observed by Decandolle, ‘‘ L’auteur méme qui a le 
premier établi un nom n’a pas plus qu’un autre le droit de le 
changer pour simple cause d’impropriété. La priorité en effet 
est vm terme fixe, positif, qui n’admet rien, ni d’arbitraire, ni de 
partial.” 
For these reasons, we have no hesitation in adopting as our 
fundamental maxim, the “ law of priority,’’ viz., 
§ 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group. 
or the describer of a species should be permanently retained, 
to the exclusion of all subsequent synonyms (with the ex- 
ceptions about to be noticed.) 
Having laid down this principle, we must next inquire into the 
limitations which are found necessary in carrying it into practice. 
[Not to extend to authors older than Linneus.] 
As our subject matter is strictly confined to the binomial system 
of nomenclature, or that which indicates species by means of two 
Latin words, the one generic, the other specific, and as this invalu- 
able method originated solely with Linneus, it is clear that, as far 
as species are concerned, we ought not to attempt to carry back the 
principle of priority beyond the date of the 12th edition of the 
“‘ Systema Nature’? Previous to that period, naturalists were wont 
to indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but by 
a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of 
which method was productive of great inconvenience, It is true 
that one word sometimes sufficed for the definition of a species, 
but these rare cases were only binomial by accident and not by 
principle, and ought not therefore in any instance to supersede the 
binomial designations imposed by Linnzus. 
The same reasons apply also to generic names. Linnzus was 
the first to attach a definite value to genera, and to give them a 
systematic character by means of exact definitions ; and therefore, 
although the names used by previous authors may often be applied 
with propriety to modern genera, yet in such cases they acquire a 
new meaning, and should be quoted on the authority of the first — 
person who used them in this secondary sense. It is true, that 
several of the old authors made occasional approaches to the 
Linnzan exactness of generic definition, but still these were but 
partial attempts; and it is certain that if in our rectification of 
the binomial nomenclature we once trace back our authorities into 
the obscurity which preceded the epoch of its foundation, we shall 
find no resting-place or fixed boundary for our researches, The 
nomenclature of Ray is chiefly derived from that of Gesner and 
Aldrovandus, and from these authors we might proceed backward 
