68 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



Much of the labour that has been bestowed on the subject might have been 

 saved bad we arrived at proper conclusions as to the object of nomenclature. 

 This I would define as a means by which naturalists can understand each 

 other when any particular species is referred to. To accomplish this, two 

 points are to be considered. First, we want each species called by a name 

 that shall not refer to any other, that shall be used by every one, and that 

 shall not be subject to alteration. Second, we require some means of know- 

 ing by what names each species has been called by previous writers. The 

 second point, which involves the synonymy of the species, is of less importance 

 than might be supposed. If we were all agreed upon the name by which a 

 species should be known now, it would not matter so much what it had been 

 called before. The first point is the difficult one as well as the most import- 

 ant. Could we but agree on one name, and relegate all others to the "infernal 

 region" of synonymy, there would be an end of the trouble, but instead of 

 accepting some proposal for a settlement, we blunder about in an extraordin- 

 ary manner, settling perhaps an odd point, but raising half-a-dozen new 

 puzzles for every one we solve. 



In the earlier portion of the present century, British lepidopterists, then 

 comparatively few in number, appear to have been content to use the names 

 adopted by our own writers, without troubling much whether they were in 

 harmony with those used elsewhere. As collectors increased and communi- 

 cation with other countries became easier, the want began to be experienced 

 of a nomenclature in harmony with that of other people. The result was the 

 Synomyic Catalogue of the late Henry Doubleday, a work of great importance, 

 and the result of much painstaking investigation. So much care indeed had 

 been bestowed upon it, and so sound was Mr. Doubleday's judgment, that 

 few of his conclusions have been shown to be erroneous. The British 

 Association adopted certain rules for zoological nomenclature, and I am not 

 aware these have ever been set aside or modified by any authority or common 

 consent, yet it is only by breach of these rules that much of the Doubledayian 

 nomenclature can be altered. Individual opinion or action has been set up 

 as superior to the conclusions of any association, and the agreement that re- 

 sulted from the adoption of these rules is lost in the confusion of to-day. 



The most important of these rules for settling our nomenclature was that 

 the 12th Edition of the Systema Naturse should be adopted as the starting 

 point. That this decision was wise there should be no doubt. Linnaeus 

 was an exceptionally able man. The binomial system of nomenclature was 

 but an adjunct to the great scheme of arrangement and order with which he 

 replaced the chaos of an earlier time. In giving names he knew what he was 

 about better than we can know, and when he thought it better to alter a 



