44 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
the mass of undigested synonymy, as in Conchology and Entomology, it cannot be 
doubted that such work thoroughly and accurately done would be a vast relief. 
For this reason I cannot hut be impressed with the value which the compromise 
here suggested might have for various branches of zoology, should specialists look 
upon it favorably. It has already been suggested, with favorable comments by Dr. 
Leconte, that such a course should be pursued, and the suggestion has been carried 
still further in the rules presented for consideration to American entomologists, by 
Messrs. Leconte, Riley and Saunders. 
Those departments having a tolerably well settled nomenclature, whether trembling 
in anticipation of sweeping innovations or not, would thus have it in their power to 
settle the matter once for all, and in the interest of the convenience of all concerned. 
Once settled, the subsidiary rectifications would be a mere matter of time. 
It may be enquired, why, after criticising adversely the selection of the twelfth 
edition as a starting point, it is still recommended for retention in the event of special- 
ists failing to agree on any other basis ? 
The reasons are,— 1st, because it has twice been recommended by the British Asso- 
ciation committee, thus acquiring a certain status, and change is always undesirable 
unless it goes to the root of a matter and in a way to receive general assent; and 2nd, 
because in one of the branches most concerned in the settlement of the whole question, 
it appears for the stability of its nomenclature, to be a vital point that the usage founded 
on the B. A. rules should be maintained if possible; at least until the students of that 
branch (Entomology) shall decide on an epoch for themselves. 
If" it lie insisted, in accordance with the old method that but one epoch shall be con- 
sidered for all zoological nomenclature, it appears to the Reporter that the date of the 
tenth edition of the Sy sterna Naturae should be taken without regard to changes neces- 
sitated thereby. 
More than half the replies to the circular are in favor of this starting point or one 
even earlier, the botanists of course insisting, in behalf of tneir department, on 1753* 
§ LIX. In botany the epoch, for scientific names is 1753, the date of the 
Species Piantarum of Linnaeus. 
The epochs chosen by Thorell for Spiders, and Agassiz for Echini, have already 
been alluded to. 
Of Synonyms and Works subject to Citation. 
§ LX. It is advisable in preparing tables of synonymy of a monographic 
character, to divide the citations into several groups according to their 
nature, the several citations in each group following each other in the 
order of their dates (which should always be specified) beginning with 
the earliest. 
All synonymy is of a historical nature but may be divided into tw r o 
groups of which one is strictly historical and the other biological. The 
historical series includes the citation of all authors who may have men- 
tioned the organism and primarily exhibits the fluctuations of its nomen- 
clature. It is divisible into two sections : — 
1. Pre-Linnacan or Bibliographical , including citations of names in 
works antecedent to the epoch adopted for the starting point of the 
nomenclature of the class to which the organism belongs. 
2. Binomial , containing citations of names from works in which the 
scientific nomenclature has been adopted. 
The biological series contains citations of works in which additions 
