THE YOUNG 



NATUBALIST 



39 



same authority, entitled "Nouvelles Re- 

 marques sur la Nomenclature Botanique" 

 (Geneve, 1883). An additional article ex- 

 tends the laws of nomenclature contained 

 in the remaining articles to all classes of 

 the vegetable kingdom, and to fossil as well 

 as to living plants ; and in another the term 

 ''mutation" is applied to a form occurring 

 in a later geological period, but which is 

 still regarded as belonging to the same 

 species as one previously described. An- 

 other new article lays down more emphati- 

 cally than before the principle that a generic 

 name once given must not be altered in order 

 to make it more correct from a linguistic, 

 euphonic, or even from a descriptive point 

 of view. It is obvious that, if it is once 

 admitted that a name once given may be 

 changed in accordance with the caprice, or 

 even with the superior learning, of a sub- 

 sequent writer, the uncertainty and con- 

 fusion introduced into nomenclature would 

 be endless. Another new article insists that 

 " the designation of a group has not for its 

 object the enumeration of the characters or 

 the history of the group, but simply the 

 supplying a means of recognising it when 

 spoken of." There can be no doubt about 

 the soundness of this view, and it may well 

 be applied to specific names, as well as to 

 those of larger groups. To attempt to 

 describe a new species in its name is usually 

 a mistake ; a larger acquaintance with the 

 species and with its allies frequently making 

 such a designation to a certain extent a 

 misnomer. Thus, among familiar English 

 plants, Epilobium montanum is our commonest 

 lowland willow-herb, "ascending," accord- 

 ing to Hooker, only "to 1,700 feet;" and 

 Bromus maximus is, by the same authority, 

 in all respects a smaller plant than B.sterilis. 

 Still, to alter these names, when once given, 

 would be opposed to all sound rules of 

 nomenclature. Indeed, as a general rule, 

 the more arbitrary the name given to the 

 new plant the better. M. De Candolle 



draws an interesting comparison in this 

 respect between the gradual change in the 

 style of nomenclature of men and of plants. 

 Nations in a rudimentary state of civiliza- 

 tion give names which describe some per- 

 sonal peculiarity or habit of the person 

 named. In a more advanced state of civili- 

 zation a name is merely a ticket by which a 

 man or woman is known, and something 

 also of his descent is indicated. Before the 

 time of Linnaeus the name of a species was 

 at the same time an enumeration of its 

 characters. The objectionable features of 

 descriptive names are more clearly seen 

 when they are translated into English. 

 Nothing can be more absurd than the 

 practice of some botanical writers, of trans- 

 lating the Latin name of every plant, and 

 calling this the English name of the plant. 

 In one small point the current style of 

 nomenclature of plants and of animals 

 differs. In botany the accepted rule is to 

 write all specific names with a small initial 

 letter, except when they are derived from 

 the name of a person ; thus ; — Hierachim 

 Lamsoni, but Hieraciwn anglicum. In 

 zoology the specific name is written with 

 a small initial letter, even when it is the 

 genitive case of a person's name, as Phasi- 

 amis reevesi. In this respect we cannot but 

 think the rule adopted by botanists is the 

 preferable one. 



A VISIT TO YORK. 



By S. L. Mosley, 



Lately my friend, Mr. Capper, being in 

 York, paid, as is usual with true Entomolo- 

 gists, a visit to the Entomological collection 

 in the Museum. This collection, that is the 

 British Lepidoptera, is the work of the late 

 Thos. Allis of that city, and was presented to 

 the Museum by his father, after the death 

 of its owner. Mr. Allis spared no time or 



