ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
51 
almost totally forgotten. Its spirit is opposed to the fundamental principles of nomen- 
clature, and the end to be gained is of the most trivial character. The gain in elegance 
is not apparent in the substitution of Crassivenus (!) for Mercenaria , or Totteniana (!! ) 
for Gemma , as generic names. But a few naturalists have followed the new method, 
and the replies to a question (NI) on the subject included in your Reporter’s circular 
have been practically unanimous in favor of the rule as here stated. 
In cases w T here the specific name was changed by the author of the genus and has 
come into general use, no good end will be gained by attempting to revert to the now 
forgotten original specific name. The retention of the latter is recommended merely 
for such cases as have given rise to controversy, or where the substituted specific name 
has not come into use. It is a singular fact that several of the more glaring instances 
cited as examples of inelegance by those in favor of the innovation show, when inves- 
tigated, that the circumstances have not been understood. Thus, the original generic 
name of Gemma 3 gemma Deshayes was not Gemma , and neither the generic nor the 
specific name of Gari gari Schumacher are tenable; since the first is improperly 
formed and should be Garia, while the latter was applied by Rumph, a non-binomial 
author, and is a vernacular and not a Latin or Latinized term. But in this, as in other 
cases, the usage of a hundred years and the fixity of nomenclature will outweigh any 
consideration of mere elegance. 
Of Changes of Names. 
§ LXIX. An author has no rights in regard to the change or rejection 
of names of his own proposition, except those which are common to all 
naturalists, and authorized by the rules of nomenclature. (DC., Tli.) 
When a name has not come into use, and its originator proposes a change 
not contrary to the spirit of nomenclature, it may, out of courtesy, be 
adopted by others and by usage become justified, even when not directly 
authorized by the rules. But when such a change is in direct opposition 
to the rules it cannot be sustained. An author has the same rights, no 
more and no less than other naturalists, over names he himself has pro- 
posed. In effect publication is a fact which cannot be annulled. (DC.) 
§ LXX. The name of a cohort, subcohort, family or subfamily, tribe or 
subtribe, should be changed when the genus, from whose name it is de- 
rived, is known to no longer form part of the group in question. (DC.) 
§ LXXI. When a section or subsection of a genus, preserving its rank, 
is transferred to another genus in which there is already a subordinate 
group bearing the same title, the first mentioned name should be changed. 
(DC) 
§ LXXII. When a species is transferred from one genus to another, in 
which latter there is already a species of the same name, the newest of 
the two identical specific names should be replaced by its first tenable 
synonym, or by a wholly new specific name if there be no synonyms. 
When a species has received a new name by reason of the existence of a prior valid 
species of the same name in the same genus, and this second specific name has become 
fixed by usage, it is not necessary in subsequent transfers to recur to the first rejected 
specific name, unless some beneficial end is to be attained. 
3 Possessing Deshayes original MSS., I am able to say that bis name was Gemmula 
and not Gemma, which latter was a typographical error. He did not see the proofs. 
