III. ZOOLOGY.

1. On Botanical and Zoological Nomenclature; by WM. STIMPSON.— A more careful attention to the subject of nomenclature is urgently demanded of the followers of all branches of Natural History. It is a subject to which too little attention has been paid in an abstract or general sense, and too much perhaps in particular cases. A comprehensive code of rules, recognised by the authority of the greater lights. of science, has been always needed. This was attempted during the last century by Linnæus and Illiger, and in 1842 "Rules of Nomenclature" were drawn up by the British Association, and ratified by the American Association in 1845. These are excellent as far as they go, but need much extension and many additions, as any one may observe who attempts to decide by them all questions which occur in his experience.

On the other hand, in particular cases of species and genera, the discussion of questions of nomenclature has reached such a pitch that it is no uncommon thing to see the greater part of a new zoological work devoted to synonymy. One author, after six pages of historical and synonymical matter, evincing great critical acumen and much bibliographical research, will arrive at what appears to him to be a certain and final conclusion that the true Orthonymus aliquis is such and such a species. The next writer who succeeds him in the same field will triumphantly prove in ten pages that it is not that species at all, but the O. neminis. And so on to the end of the chapter, if it ever will have an end, which is doubtful unless some decided action is soon taken by naturalists for the purging of their favorite science from this opprobrium. After all the pages which have been written upon some of these cases we seem no nearer to a settlement than at first. The difficulty increases rather than diminishes, -each succeeding author putting forth views differing from those of his predecessors. All this discussion, let us bear in mind, is merely preliminary, and for the purpose of indicating with certainty an object about which the author has perhaps not a dozen words to say.

Now it may appear at the first glance that the application of the law of priority is exceedingly simple. The name given by the first describer of a genus or species is to be respected, and applied to that genus or species throughout all time. But as soon as we come to apply this rule, we find cases without number in which complications occur, rendering limitations of the law necessary. Genera are to be subdivided, and are subdivided with different limits by different authors; the species of one are found by another to include two or three distinct forms, and so on. Some of the limitations of the law of priority have been laid down in the "Rules" of the British Association, but not enough to enable us to decide half the cases which may arise, leaving the remainder subject to the whims or dependent upon the extent of the knowledge of the author who would follow them.

In applying the great law, the most difficult question of all immediately arises,-What constitutes a description? or, When has an author so designated his species that his name for it should hold? On this subject we have every variety of opinion, from that of the German ornithologists, who consider that a simple published name, referring to a specimen

SECOND SERIES, VOL. XXIX, No. 86.-MARCH, 1860.

in a museum, is sufficient, to that of the lamented Edward Forbes, who once insisted that no name proposed should be accepted unless accompanied by a Latin description or an illustrative figure. The first opinion we believe to be scouted by nine-tenths of living naturalists;-the second appears to be too stringent, as an author can of course write better in his own language than in any other, though we doubt if a description appearing in Chinese would gain the least notice from modern naturalists.

The question, "What constitutes a description," can never be decidedly answered. No rule can be proposed which is universally applicable. With regard to its length;-we may say that two words are not sufficient, an hundred are; but where shall we draw the line? The two sentences of one author may be better than the two pages of another. One writer will describe an object well except in one point, in which from defective observation, a character is represented in exact opposition to the true state of the case. Some descriptions are sufficient to enable the naturalists of one country, from their collateral knowledge, to determine a species, while those of another country or continent would be left entirely in the dark. An author may publish descriptions in a work for private distribution, which will be inaccessible to the great body of naturalists. We might fill many pages with such cases as these, and yet, were rules made out applicable to each, there would still be cases constantly arising which could be decided by none of them. How then can the matter be settled in these latter instances? We will suggest a method further on.

In

It will be observed that it is among the more common and earliestdescribed species that the synonymic heap is greatest. This is exceedingly embarrassing to the student, who in general has occasion to use these very species, being those most easily accessible, in the course of his studies. He may find in a dozen different books the characters, anatomical or otherwise, of what appear to him a dozen different objects, since the names used may be different, and elementary works cannot be expected to go into synonymical details. At the present day, thanks to the advance of knowledge and precision, and the international exchange of scientific works, the name of an entirely new genus or species may escape the burden to which that of older species is subjected. It is with those published in the last century that the greatest trouble occurs. vestigators among antique and forgotten books are constantly finding some obscure work or paper, perhaps scarcely known out of its immediate vicinity even at the time it was published, in which names occur which must be adopted, in the opinion of some, to the exclusion of the familiar titles which have been used for half a century. The disinterment of Klein's name Cyclas is an instance of this. How strange it must seem to a conchologist of the present day to be obliged to designate the common marine Lucina by a name which has been in use seventy years for a freshwater bivalve, while this freshwater bivalve becomes Sphærium; and to use Cyclostoma for Delphinula, Terebellum for Turritella, etc. The restoration by G. R. Gray of Boddaert's names in ornithology is another instance. By the discovery of a meagre pamphlet of the eighteenth century, only two or three copies of which now exist, we find ourselves forced to change the generic names of common birds, familiar as they are by long and constant usage.

In the discussion of these questions all personal considerations should be entirely rejected. The smallest interest or convenience to the science in general, followed as it is by a republic of thousands, is of more importance than any compliment to the feelings of a living, or the memory of a deceased naturalist. In fact our mere recognition of an author's names is not of such vast importance to his reputation. His fame must rest upon a securer foundation than this. For the custom of placing the name of an author after a species described by him is not (or should not be) done for that author's personal advantage, but simply to assist us in the recognition of that species. It is a short method of referring to the place where the description of the species may be found, or enables us to distinguish it from some other to which the same name has been by mistake applied; as, Pleurotoma violacea, Hinds, non Mighels. In this view, how ludicrous it appears, to hear, as we often do, naturalists complain that if the custom of placing after a species the name of that author who first placed it in its proper genus is adhered to, more than one-half of Linné's species will be wrested from him. Does the fame of the great Linnæus depend upon the number of species he described?

We will now mention a few points concerning which great difference of opinion exists in the minds of naturalists, and which for the good of science should be immediately settled in one way or the other. The first is: shall the same generic name be allowed to occur in different departments of zoology or botany, or even in both these, or, we may add, in other sciences. Many are of the opinion that they may be used, and should not be changed, if so occurring-in view of the great difficulty now experienced in selecting a name which is not preoccupied, and shall be at the same time descriptive or suggestive of the object intended. But what is the object of a name? Surely, the main object is to enable us to distinguish one thing from another, and from all others, that when it is used we may know what is intended, and not be forced to decide by other aids. Is it not of vastly more importance that a name should serve this purpose, than that it should remotely indicate (which is the most generally possible) some character of the object, which it may after all hold in common with an hundred others? Greek compounds are by no means exhausted yet, and if they were, we might fall back upon euphonic names, which serve the purpose however barbarous they may appear in the eyes of some. The custom of using the same name for many diverse objects is productive of serious inconveniences. If we have stars, countries, minerals, plants, vertebrates, articulates, mollusks and radiates, all named alike, some singular anomalies might occur, since we can of course reduplicate specific appellations as often as we please in different genera. For instance, suppose a travelling naturalist "making his researches in Arizona, observed specimens of the Arizona patula (hermitcrab) inhabiting the shell of Arizona patula (univalve), creeping among the roots of Arizona patula (shrub); and upon examining it anatomically, found great numbers of the Arizona patula (infusorium) living in its gills. The Arizona patula (bird) was feeding upon these crabs with great voracity," etc.

Another point. A genus may contain a vast number of species, and yet from want of profound investigations no one may see the propriety

of dividing it up. As occurs very commonly, in the course of time some new species belonging to it are described under names, which, being preoccupied in that genus, are very properly changed. The new designations become established and may be used for years. At last it becomes necessary to divide the genus, and the species whose names have been referred to are found to belong to different genera. Shall the old reduplicated specific name, or the substituted one be now adhered to? Naturalists are about equally divided in opinion upon this point.

The propriety of using small initial letters to proper specific names, nouns or adjectives, has been made the subject of discussion. Whatever method be followed here, it would seem that uniformity is desirable; if any of these proper names are to have small initials, why not all? Most zoologists and botanists seem in this matter to follow the usage of their own language rather than that of the Latin, or any uniform system. The Germans will have all nouns begin with a capital, and all adjectives with a small letter, as Ocypode Cursor, Chiton emersonianus, whereas the English write common nouns with a small initial, and all proper appellations, whether nouns or adjectives, with a capital, as Ocypode cursor, Chiton Emersonianus. The truly convenient system will be to write all specific names without exception, with a small initial letter, as is done by one of the most eminent zoologists of this country, and by many of those of Europe. We shall then have no difficulty in distinguishing specific from generic names, and may discuss the relations of species without the necessity of repeating the generic name or its initial every time they are mentioned. A proper name, modified for use as a specific appellation, becomes a part of a new title, and involves a different idea.

We will not detain the reader by discussing other mooted points, as whether ante-Linnæan names shall be accepted, if binomial; whether names of faulty etymology shall be corrected, etc. The above are only mentioned as instances of the necessity of establishing many rules to produce uniformity of usage among naturalists. In pointing out how this may be satisfactorily done, we proceed to our promised suggestion.

We have somewhere read, that when any orthographical or other difficulty occurs in the use of the French language, the case is immediately referred, in accordance with the admirable system for which the nation are remarkable both in science and literature,-to the Academy, who decide upon it, arbitrarily it may be, but finally. The action of this tribunal is respected, and no farther uncertainty or diversity in the use or spelling of the word can occur to embarrass French authors. Now why may not a similar mode of action be of use in science, and enable us at last to settle all our difficulties. Science is cosmopolitan, not national. Let a convention meet at Paris or some other central point, composed of delegates from all the scientific societies of the earth, and representing at least all the departments of zoology and botany. Here they may hold sessions of the entire body, for a sufficient length of time to establish all the general rules of nomenclature which can be conveniently applied. But as we have before observed, there are some particular cases for which no rule will serve, and which must in some way be decided separately and arbitrarily. For the settlement of these cases let the convention divide itself into as many sections or committees as there are classes of

plants and animals; a committee of ornithologists for the birds, of entomologists for the insects, etc. These committees being composed of experts in the various branches, will not find it difficult to discuss and pass judgment by vote upon the name of each contested genus or species. Let these decisions be respected, and let the names of those who will not abide by them be placed upon a new edition of that black-book which LINNEUS kept of old,-the list of Damnati!

2. Les genres Loriope et Peltogaster, H. Rathke; par W. LILJEBORG, Professeur de Zoologie à Upsala en Svède. pp. 35, 4to, pl. 3. (Extr. des Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sc. Upsal, Ser. 3, Vol. iii.)-M. Liljeborg has unraveled a singular history in relation to the curious sac-like parasites found on the abdomens of Decapod crustaceans. They were first observed by Cavolini, and in more recent times by Rathke, who considered them to be worms, probably Entozoa, and instituted the genus Peltogaster for their reception, describing two species, P. paguri and P. carcini. Diesing placed them among his Myzelmintha, and formed a new genus, Pachybdella, for P. carcini. These forms were made the subject of discussion by Kroyer, Steenstrup, O. Schmidt, and Lindstrom, who agreed with Cavolini in referring them to the Crustacea, but could only conjecture their more intimate relations, although suggesting those with the Entomostraca, the Lerneidæ, or the Bopyridæ. From a study of their larvæ M. Liljeborg now ascertains their true place to be among the Cirripedes, and describes two new species.

Within the body of Peltogaster paguri, Rathke found a minute Tetradecapod, scarcely a line in length, which he considered to have been swallowed as food by that animal, and described it as an Amphipod under the name of Loriope. It was afterward referred to the Tanaidæ by Dana, who described a new allied genus Cryptothir. Its history however remained very obscure, although it was demonstrated that, being always found alive, it was not the food of the Peltogaster, and some naturalists even suspected it to be the male of that parasite. By a fortunate discovery M. Liljeborg has now cleared up the difficulty. In examining a Peltogaster taken from the abdomen of Pagurus pubescens, he found attached to it another sac-like body filled with Loriopes, which might well have been taken for the egg-pouch of the Peltogaster itself, but which after careful study proved to be a distinct animal,-a parasite upon a parasite! It proved, in fact, to be the female of the Loriope, grown monstrous by a process of degradation similar to that observed in the female of the Bopyrida, to which family indeed the Loriope must now be referred. The occurrence of the young Loriopes in the digestive cavity of Peltogaster is, then, simply adventitious.

3. Neue Wirbellose Thiere, beobachtet und gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, 1853 bis 1857, von LUDWIG K. SCHMARDA; 1st Band, 1st Hälfte, 4to, pp. 66, and 15 colored plates. Leipzig, 1859. (New York, B. Westermann & Co.)-A quarto volume, handsomely bound and splendidly illustrated, containing descriptions of the Turbellaria and Rotatoria collected and observed by Dr. Schmarda during a voyage round the world. The descriptions of the animals belonging to the former order are made additionally clear by woodcuts showing the shape of the head and the distribution of the ocelli. A review is given of the genera of