110 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. IV., No. 79. 



enable him to receive his telegrams and letters 

 when in the midst of such centres of population 

 as London, Paris, Berlin, or New York ; and 

 thus the evolution of the four and five divided 

 polynomial names is actually occurring, which, 

 before another half-century, will doubtless be 

 as common as trinomial names are to-day. In 

 the United States the changes have taken place 

 more slowly than in England, and in that coun- 

 try less rapidly than in Germany and France. 

 In America the trinomial system began to be 

 adopted about the middle of the eighteenth 

 century, but did not acquire prominence until 

 well into the first quarter of the present century. 

 In these remarks regard is paid to the mass of 

 the people ; for the nobility, and in some re- 

 gions the pride of descent, have hastened or 

 modified the general law of name evolution, 

 while even in England, in some isolated dis- 

 tricts, one name alone quite recently sufficed. 



Turning to natural histoiy, it can be seen 

 that in mineralog} T and lithology the species 

 are comparatively few, and a single name is' 

 used ; although traces of a binomial s} T stem can 

 be seen in the latter, in such names as quartz 

 porphyry, olivine diabase, hornblende andesite, 

 etc. Several attempts, indeed, have been made 

 to introduce a binomial nomenclature in miner- 

 alogy, but the}- have always failed because 

 both unnecessaiy and unnatural. In zoology 

 and botan}', in the olden time, one name was 

 used ; but as these sciences increased in exact- 

 ness, and in the number of their species, the 

 binomial system was introduced by Linne. 

 This has answered the purposes of science for a 

 long period ; but the multiplicity of the species 

 and varieties known has now become greater 

 than the capabilities of that sj'stem, and a poly- 

 nomial nomenclature is being surely evolved. 

 Indeed, triple and quadruple names are as in- 

 evitable to designate species and varieties, of 

 animals at least, as such names have been 

 found to be for individual men ; and the wise 

 and philosophic naturalist is undoubtedly the 

 one who adapts his S3'stem to the tendency of 

 the times, — the inevitable. 



Two modes seem available to meet this, — one 

 by the use of letters or numerals ; and the other 

 by the addition, to the generic and specific 

 names now employed, of a third or even fourth 

 name, to indicate the variety and sub- variety so 

 far as need be. The former finds an example 

 in the use of 'sen.,' 'jun.,' ' 1st,' '2d,' and 

 ' 3d,' added to distinguish individuals, and of 

 the Roman numerals affixed to the names of 

 kings. This method is confessedly inconven- 

 ient and of limited use. The second method 

 accords with the custom of mankind, and would 

 never have been adopted if it had not been the 

 easiest, best, and most natural system for man 

 and his capabilities. The trinomial system of 

 zoolog3 r (genus, species, and variety) has its 

 olden prototype in the Roman name system, — 

 gens, family, and person ; or nomen, cogno- 

 men, and praenomen, — although the order of 

 arrangement differs ; e.g., Caius Julius Caesar, 

 Lucius Cornelius Scipio. Names, for example, 

 like Turdus fuscescens salicicola would appear, 

 from the above, to be of proper form ; but such 

 as Eutaenia sirtalis sirtalis, or Heterdon plat} T - 

 rhinus platyrhinus, are as absurd as it would be 

 to name a person John John Smith or George 

 Washington Washington. The similarity of 

 the laws and methods of development of nomen- 

 clature, both for mankind in general and for 

 the naturalist, is not remarkable ; for it merely 

 displays the mind of man with its capabilities 

 and limitations, acting on the same problem, 

 — the separation of specials from generals. 

 The resemblances in both cases have been car- 

 ried out so fully, that even the organic chem- 

 ists, in their nomenclature, rival that of the 

 highland Scotchman in his palmiest days, and 

 from the same cause, — the line of descent. 



It is a good sign that the importance of the 

 explorations undertaken b} T the Peabody mu- 

 seum is acknowledged by others than those 

 in the immediate vicinity of Cambridge. The 

 broad and national character of the museum is 

 thus slowly meeting with appreciation. When 

 we recall the fact that this is the only museum 

 in the countrv founded and conducted for the 



