A FIRST PRIZE OF SUDAN 
161 
conclusions and named the animal after his wife, Cobus maria, 
“ Mrs Gray’s waterbuck.” 1 
It is thus clear that Gray undertook to describe and to 
classify an animal of whose specialised characters—as, eg, the 
elongated hoofs which dominate its systematic status (to say 
nothing of its life-habits and economies)™-he then possessed 
no shred of knowledge. For, at the time, all he had before 
him was this pair of skulls and masks. Therein, according to 
my view, he was guilty of a grave scientific offence; but in 
this condemnation Dr Gray does not stand alone. On the 
contrary, he is merely one of a crowd of fellow-criminals, 
since that type of “crime” has become well-nigh a form of 
original sin amongst our systematists and closet-naturalists. 
Many are prepared—some almost panting!—to bestow long 
and irrevocable Latin names (in triplicate) on creatures of which 
they possess practically no knowledge—or say, perhaps a flat 
skin, or a skull or two, with or without the mask. Such 
“material” is obviously inadequate. Equally obvious it is that 
such System connotes, not Science, but Speculation. 
The present is a case in point, but similar instances occur 
daily and could be cited by the dozen. I will content myself 
1 Adenota megaceros is what is termed in the technique of zoology, 
a nomen nudum— that is, it had no specific diagnosis appended. Heuglin, 
it is true, did not “ describe ” his discovery ; but he did what is tenfold 
more important—he brought home seven complete specimens. These 
sufficiently describe themselves. It is, to me, utterly inconceivable that 
any contemporary zoologist could be wholly unaware of these facts. 
L 
