103 
of a Type to Linn&an Genera. 
the original name to any portion of it at his discretion, and 
no later author has a right to transfer that name to any other 
part of the original genus/'’ This will bring about exactly 
the same result; for there is no question as to Brisson having 
been the first to subdivide the genus. But, says the Editor 
of f The Ibis/ “ does the rule which admits the additional Bris- 
sonian genera give Brisson any right to define other Linnsean 
genera? We think not.” I think very differently. Where 
is any limitation of Brisson’s rights in regard to genera ex¬ 
pressed ? His genera are brought in by a special enactment; 
but, once admitted, they are exactly on the same footing, to 
stand or fall, as those of anybody else. His specific names, 
we know, are rejected, but that is simply because he did not 
adhere to the binomial system of nomenclature which we 
adopt, and very rightly are they rejected. Had his book been 
published a few years later, or had the Code enacted that the 
10th edition of the f Systerna’ should be the point of depar¬ 
ture, there would have been no need to treat him exceptionally 
as regards his genera. If the law is to be followed, it must 
be followed in all things save such as are especially excepted; 
and of such excepted things there is in this case but one, the 
matter of specific names. Why are Brisson’s privileges, 
which, owing to his great merits, have been deservedly recog¬ 
nized, to be pared down beyond the letter of the law ? Mr. 
Salvin’s principle appears to me to be not only arbitrary, 
but contrary to the principle of all law, or English law at 
least. It is well known that any statute of disabilities has 
to be construed in the sense most favourable to the person 
disabled; and if Brisson’s specific names are disallowed, the 
disability rests there, it can have nothing to do with his 
generic divisions and their natural consequences. 
But I am not sure that I am not here arguing needlessly. 
I have already said that if Brisson’s book had been published 
a few years later, there would have been no need for any ex¬ 
ceptional treatment of him whatever. Now I once before 
pointed out in this Journal (Ibis, 1865, p. 97, note) that an 
“edition of his work was published in 1788; and being thus 
subsequent to the appearance of Linnaeus’s twelfth edition, 
