42 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
word, in contradistinction to the polynomial description of a species ( nomen specificum ) 
which was previously the rule among naturalists. That which now seems the most 
happy and important of the Linntean ideas, the restriction of the specific name as now 
understood, seems to have been for a long time only an accessory matter to him, as the 
nomina trivialia are barely mentioned in his rules up to 1765. 
In 1753, in the Incrementa botanices , while expatiating on the reforms which he had 
introduced into the science, lie does not even mention the binominal nomenclature. In 
the Systema Naturce , Ed. X, 1758, for the first time the binominal system is consistently 
applied to all classes of organisms (though it had been partially adopted by him as 
early as 1745), and hence many naturalists have regarded the Xth edition as forming the 
most natural starting point. The system being of slow and intermittent growth, even 
with its originator, an arbitrary starting point is necessary. In the XHth edition (1768- 
68), numerous changes and reforms were instituted, and a number of his earlier specific 
names were arbitrarily changed. In fact, Linnasus never seems to have regarded spe- 
cific names as subject to his rules. 
It must be observed that an apparent rather than real distinction has been ob- 
served, especially by botanists, between the citation of the authority for names of gen- 
era and that relating to specific names. In the early part of the eighteenth century a 
few botanists, among whom Toiumefort (Rei Herbar. 1749) may be particularly men- 
tioned, had progressed so far as to recognize and name under the title of genera, groups 
corresponding in most essentials to the modern idea of genera. Linnmus himself 
adopted a number of these, and used the names of Tournefort and others as authorities 
after the generic name as adopted by himself. In this the great Swede has been almost 
unanimously followed by botanists, though the names take date only from the time of 
their adoption by Linnaeus. 
A very few authors, Bentham being the most prominent, have refused to cite any 
one except Linnaeus as authority for such genera. 
Whether the course of the majority be considered judicious or not, it is now the ac- 
cepted usage in Botany. As regards names in general, botanists appear to agree in 
adopting the date of the Linnaean Species Plantarum (1753), as the epoch from which 
their nomenclature must begin. This work contains the first instance of the consistent 
use of the nomen triviale, subsequent to the proposition of the rules in the Philosophia 
Botanica, to which modern nomenclature is due. 
Binomial designations cannot, of course, be reasonably claimed to antedate the pe- 
riod when binomial nomenclature, in a scientific sense, was invented, and in spite of 
the solitary instance of 1745, no good reason appears for extending the range of scien- 
tific nomenclature to an earlier date than 1751. 
In 1842, the committee of the British Association reported “ it is clear that as far as 
species are concerned we ought not to attempt to carry back the principle of priority 
beyond the date of the twelfth edition of the Systema Natures. Previous to that period, 
naturalists were wont to indicate species not by a name comprised in one word, but by 
a definition which occupied a sentence, the extreme verbosity of which method was 
productive of great inconvenience. It is true that one word sometimes sufficed for the 
definition of a species, but these rare cases were only binomial by accident, and not by 
principle, and ought not, therefore, in any instance, to supersede the binomial designa- 
tions imposed by Linnaeus.” This related solely to zoology. 
It is said that in the original draft of the report, the number of the edition of the 
Systema Natures was left blank, and afterwards filled up by the insertion of “ twelfth.” 
This insertion renders the paragraph, otherwise judicious and accurate, glaringly in- 
correct. What motive resulted in the selection of the twelfth edition as opposed to the 
tenth, or of any special edition after the adoption of the binomial form by Linnaeus, has 
never been set forth in a satisfactory manner. If any special edition were chosen, the 
tenth has prinia facie claims for first consideration. It is as clearly binomial as any, 
and it is as consistently so. The inference from the paragraph as it stands, that the 
Mus. Tessinianum, the tenth and eleventh editions of the Systema , the writings of Pal- 
las, etc., were only accidentally binomial, is too preposterous not to create a reaction 
against the committee’s recommendation in the mind of any one familiar with these 
