ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
47 
sible in the suppression of methods leading to confusion. The above recommenda- 
tions ai’e intended to lead toward this result. In this era of numerous serials of high 
scientific standing as well as learned societies established on a permanent basis, there 
does not seem to be any good reason for failing to comply with such regulations as 
may be best fitted to advance the convenience and best interests of all. 
§ LXIV. The majority of naturalists interested in the study of any 
special class of organisms may properly unite in expressing an opinion in 
regard to any particular work treating of those organisms, in regard to 
the sufficient publication of which, at a certain date, doubts may exist; 
as to whether said work be entitled to be quoted in synonymy as well as 
in historical and biological bibliography. 
It is, therefore, recommended, that in such cases should a decisive ex- 
pression of opinion seem necessary or desirable for the benefit of sci- 
ence ; — 1st, that due notice of the proposed action be previously given to 
those interested; 2nd, that when the action has been had that the results 
should be as widely published as possible; 3rd, that the decision of the 
majority, once made, be concurred in cheerfully by all the naturalists in- 
terested, for the common good. 
Almost every department of zoology, within the last twenty-five years, has suffered 
from the discovery of some utterly forgotten work, in which names had been applied 
to objects subsequently made known to the scientific world under other appellations, 
which latter have been generally adopted. Such obsolete works are generally of no 
intrinsic scientific value, and are only recalled to public notice by the action of the lex 
prioritatis on the names they may contain. Even when at the time of their production 
they formed an advance on the knowledge of that day, it is inevitably the case at pres- 
ent that this advance is immensely behind the present state of the science, so that 
while the restoration of the obsolete names is in accordance with the principles which 
rightfully govern nomenclature, the effect upon biological study (of which nomencla- 
ture is only one of the conveniences), is positively harmful. Names sanctioned by 
years of usage, common to the whole literature, having a traditional as well as a pres- 
ent value, and standing for certain verified conclusions, — are replaced by unfamiliar 
terms, which are perhaps conceived in error, foreign to modern scientific literature, 
and too often requiring the transposition of other, and familiar names from groups in 
connection with which they are universally known perhaps to groups equally well 
known under some other name, — thereby producing the most lamentable confusion. 
It is evident that the utmost care must be taken in dealing with the subject, since 
any general rule intended to arbitrarily discriminate, would be only too liable to react 
injuriously on other portions of nomenclature, in a way to make the justice of the rule 
questionable, bring its authors and supporters into disrepute, and, by failing to induce 
uniformity, to aggravate the difficulty it was intended to overcome. 
Many naturalists have given much thought to the subject and various propositions 
have been suggested as a remedy. One of these which seems most reasonable, and 
which a number of naturalists agree in supporting, is to the effect that a name which 
has not been in use for (say) twenty-five years, shall be excluded from use thereafter 
in that special connection, as by a statute of limitations. (Riley, Lee.) Others, as Mr • 
Lewis, desire that only such names as are actually “in use” at a certain period shall 
be retained. 
The objection to the first method is that it is arbitrary, that it will not necessarily 
produce permanency (for some other work just within the limit of time may turn up 
and reverse the decisions founded on the supposition that a certain name had not been 
“in use” within the period), and especially, as also in the second case, that the term 
“in use” is not susceptible of an exact definition. The proposition of a name by an 
author may or may not cause it to be “in use.” It may be overlooked or rejected by 
