ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
49 
6. Wlien it was published in a work not entitled a priori to be cited in 
synonymy (§ LXII), or which has been definitely excluded from synonymy 
by such action as is suggested in § LXIV. 
7. When it outrages decency or religion. (Lee. 202, *|[ 5.) 
It has happened that persons of scientific acquirements but of unbalanced mind or' 
depraved taste have applied grossly indecent or blasphemous names to sundry organ- 
isms. It would seem as if a more thorough punishment could hardly be devised than 
the permanent attachment of their names as authority to the appellations referred to. 
But, since these names would remain a stigma on science as well as on their origina- 
tors, and would outrage the feelings of a majority of naturalists, it is probably better 
that they should be suppressed. A few old names, originally in bad taste, have become 
so identified with the organisms they indicate, as to have ceased to be seriously offen- 
sive, and, being consecrated by usage, need not be disturbed. 
8. When the name has never been defined, and a properly defined name 
has subsequently been applied to the same group, the earlier name should 
be rejected. 
If the earlier name be known to the describer he will do well to define, and adopt it 
when it will be accredited to him as authority, thus saving a synonym, but when this 
course has not been adopted it is too late to establish the undefined name. 
9. When a name belonging to the Latin or to a modern language, and 
having an unquestionable and specific signification, is applied to a group 
which it cannot by its etymology properly indicate it must be rejected. 
(Th.) 
Thus Tarantula Fabricius (1793), not being the historic tarentula is properly rejected 
for the later Plirynus Oliv., and the former name is applied to the true tarentula of the 
ancients. (Th.) But if another name had been the first applied to the true tarentula* 
in scientific nomenclature it could not have been suppressed to revive the classical 
name. There are very few instances where the species can be identified with sufficient 
certainty to justify the rejection of a name on the above ground as held by Thorell. 
10. When a name is identical, when properly spelled according to a 
derivation given by its author, with a prior valid name in the same king- 
dom, it must be rejected. (Th.) 
This is sufficiently obvious. 
§ LXVII. When a name has been used in one kingdom subsequent to 
1842, it should thenceforth be ineligible for use in the same kingdom ex- 
cept within the same order (ordo) in which it was originally applied. 
It would be better for Science if all names which have once been used should here- 
after be ineligible in the same kingdom. (Th., Bd.) 
But previously to the promulgation of the B. A. rules little intercourse existed be- 
tween the naturalists of different countries compared with what now obtains So it 
has happened that the same name has been used several times for different groups, and 
in some of these cases being certainly invalid, has been applied to the first valid group 
for which it had been proposed. In this manner it may haVe come into general use and 
to reject such names in some cases would cause confusion. 
It may, therefore, be considered as too late to propose a radical change, though by 
Baird, in ornithology, and others, this principle has been carried to its conclusions. 
But for more modern names the adoption of some such method seems urgently called 
for. 
A. A. A. S., VOL. XXVI. 
4 
