590 



termination -oidce in frequent use (Percoidce, Tcenioidce etc.), and, 

 as we see from the words dGreoosiS'ijg , xTsvoeidijg , ogiatgoscd^g 

 etc., it is right in words with the termination -eidi^g to employ the 

 connecting vowel o, it would appear to be reasonable to write Epei- 

 roidce, Theridioidce {-es), etc. — The termination -as appears now 

 in Zoology to be generally preferred to the equally correct termina- 

 tion -es, and I have accordingly employed it. 



(L. c, p. 17; conf. sup., p. 2.) If I once more return to the me- 

 thod of indicating the authority for a trivial name, it is to point out 

 an, as I think, important reason in favour of the method proposed 

 by a Committee appointed by the British Association for the Ad- 

 vancement of Science (vid. 1 c. , p. 3). That the rules for both bo- 

 tanical and zoological nomenclature can be, and ought to be, brought 

 into agreement, no one probably will be found to dispute; but there 

 has been hitherto an important difference just in the method of in- 

 dicating the authority for species-names, in as much as that bota- 

 nists have been accustomed, after the name of a species, to subjoin, 

 as the authority, the name of the writer who first registered such 

 species under the same both generic and specific names, whereas it 

 has been the custom of zoologists to adduce as authority the author 

 who first made known the species by the specific name in question, 

 even though he should have used another generic name, in which 

 case some of them, in conformity with the recommendation of the 

 above-mentioned Committee, enclose the name in parentheses. (Some 

 zoologists ahvays place the authority in parentheses, most of them 

 however never). Thus, according to the method usually adhibited 

 by botanists, the common garden-spider would be called Epeira dia- 

 demata Thor. (just as we write for instance Epeira adianta Walck.) 

 and not, as the custom of zoologists is. E. diademata Cleeck or E. 

 diademata (Cleeck). But, although even a congress of botanists has 

 uttered its approval of the method hitherto usually employed in their 

 science, another method of indicating the authority for specific na- 

 mes has nevertheless of late begun to come in use. It could in 

 fact not fail to be observed, that what we chiefly should endeavour 

 to gain by the citation of an authority, is a reference to the work 

 wherein the species was first made knoion, which is in general iden- 

 tical with a reference to the source of the- specific name; and when 

 a species has been first described under a generic name different from 

 that now in use, several botanists have therefore begun to cite two 

 authorities , the first enclosed in parentheses and indicating the source 



