OCR Text |
Show 312 MR. P. L. SCLATER ON THE [Mar. 3, Naturae' as our starting-point (as is enacted in the Stricklandian Code) we allow Linnaeus this privilege. If we take the tenth edition, as proposed by the American ornithologists, and now adopted in the two German Codes, w e deny him the right of correcting his own work, which, under the circumstances, appears to be obviously unfair and injudicious. Eor it is unquestionably the case that Linnaeus altered some of his names in his last and most perfect edition of 1766-68, and added others to his list. If we acknowledge the authority of the authors w h o wrote between 1758 and 1766 we shall have to change some of Linnaeus's best-known names. Eor example, the Horned Screamer of South America has been universally known to ornithologists as Palamedea cornuta, asnamedby Linnaeus in the twelfth edition of the 'Systema,' the genus having been omitted in the tenth edition. In the meanwhile, however, Brisson in 1762 (Orn. v. p. 518) had used " Anhima" of Marcgrave as its generic name, and Mr. Stejneger has accordingly proposed to call the Horned Screamer Anhima cornuta (Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 135). If this alteration be adopted, the names of the family Palamedeidce and of the suborder Pala-medece will likewise have to be changed. I will take another example of the inconvenience of allowing Linnaeus's names to be superseded. The Common Darter of Central and South America is the Plotus anhinga of Linnaeus's twelfth edition and is almost universally known under this name, which also gives its name to the family Plotidae. Unfortunately, Brisson in the interval between the two editions of the ' Systema' proposed the generic term Anhinga for the same bird, and the American Check-list consequently proceeds to call the Darter " Anhinga anhinga," and the family " Anhingidce." It must be admitted that both these alterations, which are consequent upon the adoption of 1758 as the commencement of binary nomenclature in place of 1766, as well as many other changes of the same character which I need not now cite, are matters of considerable importance. Strickland, the founder of our modern Codes of Nomenclature, after deliberately considering the point, adopted the latest and most perfect edition of the ' Systema Naturae' as his starting-point. I think we should do unwisely to deviate from Strickland's views on this subject. It is true that Strickland proposed to allow such of Brisson's names as were additional to those of the twelfth edition of the ' Systema Naturae' to he retained, but he certainly did not contemplate the supercession of any of Linnaeus's names by those of Brisson or of any other authority. On the ground of priority, therefore, I claim that, as first decided by Strickland, we ought to adopt the twelfth and most perfect edition of the ' Systema Naturae' as the basis of modern Nomenclature. Even if we adopt the tenth edition as our starting-point, a special proviso should be made that none of the names contained in the twelfth edition should be allowed to be disturbed. There are two or three less important points in Zoological Nomenclature upon which I wish to add a few words. (1) The German Code, which w e are n o w principally considering |