94 



THE AMERICAN NATURALIST 



[Vol. LV 



duf, Avahi, Aije-aye, Bagre, Cachalot, Djahub, Gryshock, J afar, 

 JuJcaruJca, Kahavahi, Louti, Mabuya, Maki, Ompok, Potto, 

 Sandat, Sheltopnsik, TIja, Susu, Wallago, Zingel and the like? 

 Or with such personal and local derivatives as: Amiskwia, 

 Ernestokokenia^ Isclvikauia, Mitsukurina, Mordwilkoja, Schlag- 

 inhaufenia, Takakkawia, Wankowiczium, Wlassicsia and Zschok- 

 keellaf 



The writer does not defend the choice of such names, but once 

 on record they are an integral part of nomenclature and an out- 

 burst of purism sufficient to do away with them will not occur. 

 Whether we will or no, we are dealing with essentially arbitrary 

 combinations of letters arbitrarily selected. The conglomeral ion 

 of generic names in zoology, may be, nay is, subject to criticism, 

 but it exists, is in use. It is part and parcel of the language of 

 Science and classical purism can no more be applied to it than 

 to any other modem language which is constantly growing, ever 

 adding to itself terms from a multitude of sources.'' A condi- 

 tion not a theory confronts us; practicability must reign and 

 pedantry be forgotten. 



Practically all rules relating to the validity and priority of 

 generic names have some saving clause as " typ<^raphical errors 

 corrected." or "except for obvious typographical errors." A 

 common-sense application of such clauses would do away with 

 the most vexatious cases of emendation, cases often cited to 

 show the necessity of homonymizing similar generic names, 

 namely those in whicli an author mis-spolls names of liis own 

 establishing when usitiji- th(>in siibsorjiioiitly to the original cita- 

 tion. In such cases wliy can w.- not take an nutlior at liis word; 

 he intended to treat of the same group as before, and his emended 

 name, whether intentional or not should be regarded as a 

 synonym of the original. We do not recognij^e an author's 

 efforts to change a published name, except to correct typo- 

 graphical errors. Why should we give any weight to emenda- 

 tions which themselves, in many if not most cases, are almost 

 certainly typographical errors. The same rule should apply to 

 names mis-spelled by othei-s than the original author when it is 

 clear they intended to refer to the same genus. The fact that 

 the species included under such names are now considered to 

 belong to ditlVt'cut ircncra is of no consequence; these genera 



" Thus adoj.t into English but do not Anglify such words as hangar, 

 machete, fez, mufti, a host of which could be cited. 



