48 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
others, or without for some time appearing in any other publication, it may be in very 
general use in letters, museum labels, etc. Everybody who is guided in his work by 
the particular views of the author referred to, in one sense “uses” the name though 
he may never publish it on his own account. No one can ever be sure that a contem- 
porary came, even if glaringly erroneous, may not be (by the ignorance or error of 
some provincial naturalist) accepted in various obscure publications. 
Hence it would appear that these propositions are impracticable, and this is the 
opinion of a very large majority of the American naturalists who replied to the cir- 
cular in which the question was submitted to them (XXI, XXII). 
The Qnly other resource would then appear to be either (1), the publication of a list 
of names in any special group with their types, which all the specialists of that group 
would agree to accept, or (2), some such course as the one suggested by the foregoing 
§ LXIY. 
The first is clearly impracticable, since perfection in nomenclature, as in other 
things, is a relative term, and but a small proportion of the names conld be settled 
with certainty, front the constant progress of our knowledge of the relations of organ- 
isms. 
The second seems to be the only practicable method. The difficulties which all nat- 
uralists deplore, in the main arise, in each specialty, from some one or two obnoxious 
works. The course proposed by Alfred Wallace (Trans. Entom. Soc., London, 1871, 
LXVIII), recommended by Dr. LeConte (p. 210), and acted on in the “ Rules to be sub- 
mitted,” etc., of Messrs. LeConte, Saunders, and Riley (HIV), in respect of this partic- 
ular case, seem to your Reporter to indicate the proper method of cutting the Gordian 
knot and to be well worthy of consideration. 
It should, however, be clearly borne in mind that this process is one that requires 
the greatest impartiality and delicacy in its application, and can only be justified by 
paramount necessity in any particular case. It is not in consonance with some of the 
general principles of nomenclature, can only be accepted when applied with self-evi- 
dent propriety, and any license or abuse of the power it implies would react against 
the authors and make the last state of the science worse than the first. 
Of Names to be Rejected, Changed, or Modified. 
§ LXY. A name cannot be changed under the pretext that it is badly 
chosen, that it is not agreeable, that another is better or more widely 
known, that it is not of a sufficiently pure Latin derivation, or for any 
other contestable or valueless motive. (DC.) 
§ LXYI. A name should be rejected under the following circumstances. 
1. When this name has previously been applied in a tenable manner to 
another valid group of organisms in the same kingdom. (DC., Lee., B. A.) 
2. When it is already applied to another species in the same genus, or 
to another subdivision of a species in the same species. (DC., B. A.) 
3. When it expresses an attribute or character positively false in the 
majority or the whole of the group in question, as in cases (among others) 
when a name has been founded on a monstrous, abnormal, immature, arti- 
ficial or mutilated specimen; or when a geographical specific name is that 
of a country entirely removed from the faunal or floral grand division to 
which the -species belongs. (DC., B. A., Tii., Y., Bourg.) 
4. When it is formed of two words belonging to different languages, as 
eu put before a Latin name, sub before a Greek name, oicles, opsis, suffixed 
to a Latin name, etc. (DC., Th., etc.) 
5. When it is contrary to the provisions of § § L,-LIX. 
