Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 2 (1898).djvu/130

98 The paper referred to is one by Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, a young American, who in the preparation of his monograph of North American Vespertilionidæ has investigated the nomenclature of all our European genera of that family, and has published the results in an English periodical.

So great is the general dislike to change in nomenclature that after the publication of such a paper one finds that some people reject the changes altogether, while others adopt them, using the fresh names as occasion offers, the natural result being a long period of confusion and inconvenience. It is therefore thought that a concise list of the British Mammals, under the names believed to be correct on the most rigid principles of nomenclature, will be of use both to those who wish to form an opinion of their own on the subject, and to those who are willing to accept, if they know them, whatever names may be adopted by the world in general.

The object of nomenclature is to obtain a stable list of names, and while experience shows that such stability is unattainable while each author clings to what he or she thinks is the "well-known" name, it equally shows that at first a technical, and then a general, uniformity may be obtained by the rigid application of the principle of priority, whatever the temporary inconveniences of such a course may be.

One of the chief causes of the large number of changes necessary is that Linnæus gave certain names to certain animals in Scandinavia, and that these names were transferred to quite different animals in Central Europe and England under the erroneous idea that they were the animals Linnæus referred to. The most disastrous of these mistakes is that of "Vespertilio murinus" as worked out by Mr. Miller and explained below; but the Hares and Shrews have also been affected by the same kind of mistake.

The wrong use of Vesperugo for Pipistrellus, Crossopus for Neomys, Synotus for Barbastella, and Arvicola for Microtus are simple cases of defiance of priority, and can be corrected without confusion.

Lastly, although more debateable than priority, I would express