OCR Text |
Show 314 MR. P. L. SCLATER ON THE [Mar. 3, capensis, and a Tortoise not found in Chili Testudo chilensis. I have consequently refused to use such names, preferring accuracy to priority. But the American Code, it is quite clear, does not permit such alterations, and I fear that the German Code under the explanations of Sect. V. is against m y views upon this point. O n this subject, however, the original Stricklandian Code (see explanations to Sect. X.) clearly rules in m y favour. (3) There is one point which seems not to have been touched upon in any of the Eules hitherto promulgated. It is the last to which I shall call your attention this evening. That is, the expediency of rejecting ambiguous specific names in certain instances. A n example of such a case will best explain m y meaning. I will take a well-known one, but there are many like it. Lepus timidns of Linnaeus was probably intended by the learned Swede as the epithet of the Mountain or Variable Hare of Northern Europe. It has, however, until recently, been almost universally applied to the common lowland species, Lepus europaeus of Eallas1. Eecent authors having discovered the error have proposed to re-impose the name of Lepus timidus upon the Northern species=Lepus variabilis, Pallas. I maintain, however, that, under the circumstances that have happened, Lepus timidus can no longer be used as a name at all. It is perfectly useless as a specific designation, because when Lepus timidus is spoken of (whether ' Linn.' be added to it or not) nobody can tell wdthout further information whether it is intended to indicate Lepus variabilis or Lepus europceus. Under such circumstances the specific term timidus ought to be considered as " void for ambiguity" and the next given name " variabilis" of Pallas employed in its place. There are many other cases of the same sort, but of course such rejections should be sanctioned only in extreme cases, when it is certain that the retention of the older name wdll lead to confusion. The Canon that I should suggest on this subject would be something as follows :- Specific names which have been applied habitually to one species but can be proved to be properly apphcable to another may be superseded by the next oldest applicable term in both cases. Before concluding this address I will say a few words as to my views on the vexed subjects of trinomials. That subspecies actually exist in nature cannot, I think, be denied by anybody who believes in the origin of species by descent. Nearly all forms of animal life, which* have a wide distribution, show differences when individuals from the two extremes of the range of the species are compared. These differences are in many cases united by intermediate forms which occur in the more central portion of the range. " Subspecies " appears to m e to be an excellent term to designate the slight differences exhibited in these cases, far better than " climatic " or " geographical " variety, which is often used for them. W e are thus enabled to retain " variety " for abnormal variations from the typical form (such as albinisms &c.) which occur without 1 " See Bell's ' British Quadrupeds,' p. 331 (1884): Blasius, Wirbelfb.Europ. p. 412 (1857). |