ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 45 
have been made to our knowledge of the organization, development, dis- 
tribution or genetic relations of the organism concerned. 
While the names used in the biological series may properly be cited in the historical 
series, authors of monographs may greatly facilitate the investigations of students by 
appending to their historical synonymy a biological list, especially, if, in the latter, they 
add to the citations of the papers or publications themselves, a word or two in paren- 
theses indicating the character of the additions to knowledge to be found in the respec 
tive works, — as (Embryology), (Geogr. Distr.), etc. 
The advantages of this course are sufficiently obvious. 
§ LX*I. Synonymy, properly speaking, has reference only to names com- 
ing under the second section of the historical series. Its object is solely 
the sifting of the nomenclature of an organism or group of organisms, 
that the name or combination of names which are entitled to be perma- 
nently connected with it, and by which it shall be denominated in scientific 
literature, may be definitely determined. 
The object of citations in the biological series is of a different character. They are 
intended to serve as a guide to the student in researches of a biological nature as an 
index to the progress of investigation, and to the views on the subject held by different 
authorities. As such, the series should be disembarrassed from extraneous, purely 
synonymical citations. This distinction, especially noted by A. Agassiz, has hitherto 
been much neglected. 
§ LXII. The following kinds of works are entitled to citation in bibli- 
ography, but not in synonymy. 
1. Works antecedent to the nomenclature-epoch adopted for the class 
of organisms concerned. 
2. Works subsequent to that epoch in which the binomial nomencla- 
ture is not consistently adopted. 
3. Works not published. 
Works of the first and second kind may often be advantageously consulted for bio- 
logical information and cited in the biological series; as, for instance, Poli, who 
adopted a singular quadrinomial form of nomenclature, but to whom are due many 
important anatomical researches. No injustice is done by citing an author for the real 
benefit he has conferred on science, while declining to burden the latter with an incom- 
patible nomenclature. 
With regard to works of the second kind much diversity of opinion has been ex- 
pressed. Some naturalists would accept in synonymy, accidental binomial phrases, 
as entitled to priority as names, provided they occur in works published subsequently 
to the nomenclature-epoch. P>ut in this as in all cases when tested by fundamental 
principles it is easy to arrive at a conclusion. 
When one word at the commencement of a descriptive sentence or phrase is in ital- 
ics or separated by a comma from what follows (as was the usual practice amongst an- 
cient writers) it is a matter subject to a diversity of opinions as to whether this, to- 
gether with the generic name if any were employed, forms a tenable binomial name or 
not. Some authors would adopt the genus and consider that no tenable specific name 
had been employed. Others would adopt both. Others again would reject both. But 
the question as to whether the author in the work referred to, adopted and consistently 
used the binomial system of nomenclature is one upon which no difference of opinion 
can exist. It is a question capable of a categorical answer at once. Hence it would 
seem preferable to stand, once for all on the solid ground of certainty and avoid a 
course which will inevitably introduce a large amount of uncertainty. This course is 
