66 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



needed bnt two words for each species. The second of these words was the 

 individual name, while the first shewed to which group the particular species 

 belonged. Both these words might be given at random, or might refer to 

 some characteristic or peculiarity belonging to it. The chief thing was that 

 the same name, or at any rate the same combination of names, should 

 never be applied to different species. This binomial system is so perfectly 

 natural, and we are now so well accustomed to it, that it seems difficult to 

 imagine a time when any other method obtained, if indeed we can call the 

 older way a method. The common or vulgar names have always been more 

 or less binomial. As early as the time of Moses we read (Leviticus XI.) of 

 the Eagle and the Gier Eagle, of the Hawk and the Night Hawk, of the 

 Great Owl and the Little Owl. Just so we now speak of our butterflies as 

 the Large White and the Small White, the Green-veined White and the Bath 

 White. Our own names are doubled in the same way, but there is this to 

 be observed, that in our names and the common names of animals, the dis- 

 tinctive names are placed first, and the family or generic name last, while in 

 the Linnsean or scientific method the order was reversed. That this is the 

 better way may be gathered from the fact that in any arrangement of our own 

 names, or the common names of animals, it is followed as in science. Thus 

 in indexing a ledger or a book, or arranging a directory, John Smith stands 

 under " S " along with others of the Smith family, and the names follow that 

 distinguish one from the other. 



How came it then, that when a system of nomenclature, both natural and 

 simple had been devised, there has ever been a doubt as to what species any 

 particular name refers, or by what name any particular species should be 

 called. It is not difficult to understand how it has happened that different 

 names have been given to the same species, but it does seem strange, that a 

 number of intelligent men, deeply interested in the study and collection of 

 natural objects, should be unable to agree not only by what name each should 

 be known, but even on what principal names already given should be settled. 

 Lepidopterists have acquired a bad notoriety for continual differences of 

 opinion as to the names by which certain species should be known, nor do 

 they even now appear to draw towards a conclusion that is likely to be 

 acceptable to every one. Over and over again the subject has been discussed. 

 Everything that could be said has been said, but every one is so positive that 

 his plan is the only way in which the question can be settled that no one 

 will yield to another. Even the political differences between France and 

 Germany appear to render it more difficult to arrive at any satisfactory con- 

 clusion. In this country we have confined our attention so much to our own 

 fauna, that we have had less trouble than we might otherwise have had, but 



