161 
them to a tenfold number, “ proceeding,” as Mr. Burchell observes in The Vicar 
of Wakefield , “ in a reciprocal duplicate ratio.” One writer assigns a species to 
one genus, another to another, so that, assuming , for the sake of argument, that 
each is right, we shall ultimately have no distinction between genus and species— 
every species will comprise a genus, every genus will contain but one species; and 
thus one representative name would answer the purpose of two, with half the trou¬ 
ble and twice the simplicity. 
With regard to generic names, Dr. Lindley says, “ so impossible is it to con¬ 
struct generic names that will express the peculiarities of the species they repre¬ 
sent, that I quite agree with those who think a good unmeaning name by far the 
best that can be constructed.” What Dr. Lindley means by “ a good unmeaning 
name” it is difficult to say ; because, if the name be unmeaning, which he assumes, 
and in which he considers its excellence to consist, it would be well adapted for 
its purpose, provided it were not monstrous or ridiculous. If we admit the cor¬ 
rectness of his opinion, which I shall discuss presently, the matter, as far as gene¬ 
ric names are concerned, is settled at once ; but if we leave this a matter of un¬ 
certainty or of choice, assuming his proposition as to the impossibility of construct¬ 
ing generic names which shall express the peculiarities of the species, we shall 
then have a difficulty to encounter with this class of names, wdiich does not meet 
us with the latter, because then it might be no easy matter to determine whether 
alteration would be needed or not—in connection, I mean, with the fitness or unfit¬ 
ness of such names. 
But it remains to be considered whether it is really better that the generic 
name should be unmeaning or not: and, first, it is evident that if a name can be 
selected whose meaning can express the peculiarities of the species, such a name 
is preferable to one which, having no meaning at all, can of course convey no in¬ 
formation as to the characteristics of any individual contained under it. That it is 
possible for such names to be employed is manifest in the cases of genera which 
contain only one species; because, if a specific name can be chosen which will ex¬ 
press the specific difference of that kind, nothing can be more easy than to express 
the same by some other tautologous word ; or, if that is not practicable, it may be 
accomplished by the one name being expressed by a word of Latin, the other by a 
word of Greek, derivation. Again, even in the case of genera which contain 
more, or many more, species than one, I do not see, even here, what is gained 
by using a name which has no meaning; but rather on the contrary it appears to 
me that something is gained if the generic name be capable of expressing even a 
part of the peculiarities of its species; and I am inclined to believe that some 
generic name might be constructed to express even all of them, (without being of 
any immoderate length) although that is not indispensably necessary ; because if 
part of the peculiarity is expressed by the specific name, and the other part (com¬ 
mon, perhaps, to all the species) is expressed by the generic, the whole definition of 
VOL i. 
Y 
