ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
43 
works. This has heen the result, in fact, and, to a considerable extent, in the works of 
the naturalists of northern Europe, the tenth edition has been taken as the starting 
point. 
The rule following the paragraph quoted from the committee’s report, however, con- 
tains no reference to any special edition or work, and reads, simply: — “the binomial 
nomenclature having originated with Linnaeus, the law of priority in respect of that 
nomenclature, is not to extend to the writings of antecedent authors.” (§2, p. 10, 1. c.) 
There is nothing to object to in this, and it is in all respects reasonable and fair. In 
adopting the tenth edition as a starting point, therefore, naturalists have not infringed 
on any of the original B. A. rules, but, at most, disregarded a subsidiary recommenda- 
tion founded on an inaccuracy. 
In 18(53, however, the Association determined to overhaul the rules, and the amended 
ones adopted in 1865 contain the following remarks and modification of the second rule : 
“ The Committee are of opinion, alter much deliberation, that the twelfth edition of 
the Systema Natures, is that to which the limit of time should apply, viz., 1766. But, 
as the works of Artedi and Scopoli, have already been extensively used bylcthyolo- 
gists and Entomologists, it is recommended that the names contained in or used from 
these authors should not be affected by this provision. This is particularly requisite 
as regards the generic names of Artedi, afterwards used by Linnaeus himself.” 
The original rule of 1812 is then modified (by the additions indicated in italics) to 
read as follows : 
“The binomial nomenclature having originated with Linnaeus, the law of priority, 
in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to the writings of antecedent authors, 
and, therefore (sic), specific names published before 1766 cannot be used to the prejudice of 
names published since that date.” 
It would appear that the Committee were “ plus saint que le Pape,” since they would 
reject names that Linnaeus himself was ready to and did adopt. In this connection, 
Prof. Verrill (Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts, July, 1869) has made some judicious remarks 
calling attention to the works of Pallas, and Thorell has done the same for Clerck on 
the subject of spiders. 
An apologetic paragraph, following the remarks above quoted from the B. A. Com- 
mittee report for 1865, inferentially admits the error of 1842, but goes on and reaffirms 
it on the ground that confusion would otherwise result. 
It is very doubtful if much confusion would be caused by leaving the question 
open, since half the naturalists of Europe and America have already adopted the tenth 
edition of their own motion, and the other half, or a large portion of them may not un- 
reasonably be believed to be only held back from joining the others by a desire to con- 
form to the rules, even where injudiciously framed. 
In a large part of zoology, the change would make no difference whatever, since the 
scientific study of such branches has begun since 1766. 
The principle embodied in the Rule now submitted by your Reporter, is inferentially 
admitted to be valid by the B. A. committee in their remarks on Artedi and Scopoli. 
Since 1865, Thorell, in his monograph of European spiders, has boldly adopted, so 
far as specific names 1 are concerned, a plan similar to that here recommended, and 
takes the binomial work of Clerck (1757) on Swedish spiders as his “epoch maker.” 
Geo. R. Gray, in his “ Genera of Birds,” adopts the first edition of the Systema (1755) 
much in the botanical sense as the epoch-maker for ornithological genera. For specific 
names he does not go behind the tenth edition (1758). 
Alex. Agassiz, also, while declining to be bound by any arbitrary rules, has gone to 
the foundation of things in Echinological literature, and from the typical specimens of 
their describers, has brought into scientific nomenclature, the ancient and earliest 
names of Klein and others, whose work in this branch of zoology he pronounces far in 
advance of their time. 
However inadvisable such changes would be in any department where the nomen- 
clature maybe tolerably well fixed; in those in which students are overwhelmed by 
1 The genera of spiders are not affected by the question. 
