212 Scientific Nomenclature. [April, 
most part free from any attempt at significance, and conse- 
quently can suffer little from any change of theory. 
We come now to the organic sciences, where the wonder- 
ful changes wrought out by Darwin and his coadjutors have 
so far not been thought to involve a re-naming of the entire 
vegetable and animal kingdoms. The so-called binary no- 
menclature, commonly ascribed to Linnaeus, is really due to 
Pierre Belon, of Mans, who laid down its principles as early 
as 1558. But there is a feeling “ in the air ” that this system 
has had its day, as not lending itself to the discrimination 
of sub-specific forms. We must indeed admit that, with all 
its advantages, the Linnaean system is better adapted to the 
hypothesis of permanent and unalterable species than to 
that of ever-changing forms. Let us hope, however, that 
when — if ever — the new nomenclature is constituted it will 
not be built upon the lines of the supposed evolutionary 
pedigree of each species. Equus caballus may not be a 
faultless name for a horse ; but suppose in its stead one in 
which Orchippus, Anchitherium, andHipparion are interwoven, 
every additional step in research involving a re-naming ! 
In the meantime the rage for significant names has made 
itself felt as regards more recently discovered species, and 
with the necessary results. The older names connote no- 
thing, and simply denote the genus or species to which they 
are applied. Thus no one, save perhaps a philologist of the 
calibre of Prof. Max Muller, can find any meaning in the 
word Rosa. Yet it makes as good a generic name as does 
Trigonogenium, Tmesorrhina, or Dicranocephalus, and is much 
more easily pronounced and remembered. 
I cannot sympathise with those who think every name of 
origin other than Greek or Latin should be necessarily ex- 
cluded. Why, for instance, was Moa not permitted to remain 
as the generic name of the gigantic extindt bird of New 
Zealand ? It is shorter and much more euphonious than 
the Greek word Dinornis which has been coined in its place, 
and, belonging to none of the “ culture-tongues,” might have 
been accepted in all countries. On the other hand, Dinornis 
has indeed a meaning, — “ dreadful bird,” — but, as is often 
the case, one which tells us nothing concerning the locality, 
the habits, or other properties of the species. 
I heard with surprise and regret, a few evenings ago, an 
eminent entomologist complaining that names taken from 
Hindu mythology had latterly been given to Indian insedts. 
With all due deference I cannot enter into his feelings. 
These Hindu names are well marked, easy to remember, 
and if applied to species inhabiting the Oriental Region 
