Parsons : Scientific Nomenclature. 



107 



to wliat other species the one in question is most nearly allied. What 

 the form of these marks should be, is a question rather of convenience 

 than of prime scientific necessity. It is no doubt desirable that scientific 

 names should be short and euphonious, and that they should recall 

 some characteristic feature of the species ; chiefly because such names 

 are more easily learnt and remembered ; but no one would be 

 justified in altering established names merely to this end. William 

 Shakespeare " is found quite sufficient to identify the individual who 

 bore it, although it in no way describes the characteristics for which 

 he is remarkable. 



A set of canons of nomenclature was laid down by Linngeus, but 

 even Linnaeus himself did not always adhere to them. For instance, 

 one canon is to the effect that names taken from other languages 

 besides Latin and Greek are inadmissible ; yet, as the specific name 

 of the common brook-lime Linnaeus took the not very euphonious 

 Swedish name, " Beccabunga." In fact, in this, as in other matters, 

 it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast line of practice. Hules 

 are sometimes useful guides, but skill and judgment are often better 

 evinced in knowing when to depart from them than in following 

 them. Thus none of the Linn^ean canons seems more reasonable 

 than that scientific names should not be given in honour of saints or 

 of persons in authority, but only of naturalists ; yet in the name of a 

 genus of flowers bearing something of a resemblance to a human 

 face, Linnaeus has fitly enshrined the beautiful legend of St. 

 Veronica, and what loyal Englishman will dispute the appropriate- 

 ness of the name of that grandest of plants, the gigantic water-lily 

 " Victoria Regia " of Lindley ? For a name to convey a sufficient 

 description of the species it noted, it would often require to consist of 

 several sentences, rather than of a single word. I should imagine, 

 though I do not speak as an entomologist, that this would be 

 especially the case among butterflies, the distinctions between 

 different species consisting to a great extent in the arrangement of 

 the colours. If so, this would help to explain why unmeaning 

 classical names have been so largely used in this order. That such 

 names are sufficiently distinctive as marks of kinds, is shown by the 

 fact that in exchanges it is found enough to quote the specific name, 

 e.^.' Machaon," " Aglaia," &c. ; this could not be done without 

 confusion with such names as " albus," " vulgaris," &c. Mythological 

 names, though perhaps carried to excess among butterflies, are 

 sometimes appropriate enough — e.(/. the little one-eyed crustacean 



