ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
37 
from the designation of the genus to which he referred it by the word 
sub ; as Crania craniolaris Nilsson (L. sub Anomice ). This form is chiefly 
employed in Botany, and is liable to objection from its length, (cf. Lee. 
p. 204, et seq.) 
# 
For many years, Linnaeus, Lamarck, Cuvier, Blainville, D’Orbigny and the majority 
of zoologists, as well as the universality of botanists, in citing a combination of words 
forming a specific name, appended to it as authority, the name of the author of the 
combination, whether he were the author of the specific name or not. 
More lately some zoologists have followed a different method, recommended by 
Strickland in the B. A. rules of 1812, but which was from the first strongly combated by 
Agassiz, and other influential naturalists. 
This method consists in appending the name of the author of the specific name in 
all cases without reference to the generic combination. 
In deference to the said rules it has been somewhat extensively practiced, though 
open to several objections which have been exhaustively set forth by Agassiz, D’Orbigny, 
Bourguignat, and De Candolle; the latter remarking that, if followed, it would cause 
zoological lists to resemble a city directory in which the names of individuals were 
classed according to the alphabetical order of their Christian names. 
Numerous battles of words have taken place over the questions which is, at most, 
not one of fundamental importance, and it appears to your Reporter that it may safely 
be left to tiie common sense of naturalists to decide. 
There can be no question that the advantage of precision is with the older method, 
which accords with the practice of Linnaeus and the spirit of the Linntean canons, 
w hile, by the mode suggested in H C, no uncertainty is permitted, and the most tender 
sentiment of justice, toward both the describer and the referrer of the species, is satis- 
fied. 
§ XLY . In writing the name of a species with the authority, it is un- 
necessary to separate the latter from the specific name, by a comma. (V.) 
There has been little uniformity in regard to this matter, and Prof. Verrill has judi- 
ciously suggested that “ the best usage appears to be without any punctuation, the 
authority in this case being understood to be a noun in the genitive case, though written 
in the nominative form or more frequently abbreviated.” 
§ XLYI. A change of the diagnostic characters or the circumscription 
of a group does not authorize the citation of another author than the one 
who first published the name or combination of names. 
When the changes have been considerable, to the citation of the primi- 
tive author may be added mutatis char., pro parte, excl. gen., excl. sp., excl. 
var., or such other abridged indication as may indicate the nature of the 
changes in the revised group, or of the group treated of. (DC.) 
Whatever the changes brought about by the advance of science, in any group the 
fact that a certain author proposed a certain name is the one positive incident which 
can be recognized. (DC.) 
Some authors (Riley) object to this generalization, but it appears to be generally 
accepted. 
§ XLVII. Names published from manuscripts, unpublished catalogues, 
museum labels and herbaria, etc., are given precision by citing as author- 
ity the author who first published them in spite of any indication to the 
contrary which he may have given. Similarly names used in botanical 
gardens are cited as of the author who first published them. In the full 
