CERATISOLEN.
\J
although the Pharella of Gray is closely allied to Ceratisolen. The present genus is considered by some authors
synonymous with Pharus of Leach, originally a manuscript name, and since made to a certain extent intelligible in consequence of Dr. Gray having cited, in the
British Museum Catalogue of Mollusca, ''Solen legumen''
as the type or example. But, in a scientific point of
view, it does not seem to matter much whether the
name of any group is merely manuscript, or inadequately
defined.
In order to constitute a genus, it is not sufficient for any naturalist, even if he should be gifted with
an eagle-eye, to pounce upon a certain species and say,
'' That 's my genus so and so." Something more is
wanting.
He ought to describe its characteristics, or
at all events point out in what respects it can be distinguished from other genera. I fully concur in the recommendation of the British Association Committee,
" that new genera or species be amply defined ;
^^ and
one of the grounds of this recommendation seems also
to be reasonable, viz. that a large proportion of the
complicated mass of synonyms, which has now become
the opprobrium of zoology, has originated from the
slovenly and imperfect manner in which species and
higher groups have been defined. A name accompanied
by a sufficient description or diagnosis, and adopted by
naturalists of recognized authority, supersedes in my
opinion a prior name which, from the want of such accompaniment, was in fact "vox et prseterea nihil."
Ceratisokn has also euphony on its side. " Ejusmodi
vocabula Grseca lingua pulcherrima sunt." (Linnets
' Philosophia Botanica,' § 222.)
B O
\J
although the Pharella of Gray is closely allied to Ceratisolen. The present genus is considered by some authors
synonymous with Pharus of Leach, originally a manuscript name, and since made to a certain extent intelligible in consequence of Dr. Gray having cited, in the
British Museum Catalogue of Mollusca, ''Solen legumen''
as the type or example. But, in a scientific point of
view, it does not seem to matter much whether the
name of any group is merely manuscript, or inadequately
defined.
In order to constitute a genus, it is not sufficient for any naturalist, even if he should be gifted with
an eagle-eye, to pounce upon a certain species and say,
'' That 's my genus so and so." Something more is
wanting.
He ought to describe its characteristics, or
at all events point out in what respects it can be distinguished from other genera. I fully concur in the recommendation of the British Association Committee,
" that new genera or species be amply defined ;
^^ and
one of the grounds of this recommendation seems also
to be reasonable, viz. that a large proportion of the
complicated mass of synonyms, which has now become
the opprobrium of zoology, has originated from the
slovenly and imperfect manner in which species and
higher groups have been defined. A name accompanied
by a sufficient description or diagnosis, and adopted by
naturalists of recognized authority, supersedes in my
opinion a prior name which, from the want of such accompaniment, was in fact "vox et prseterea nihil."
Ceratisokn has also euphony on its side. " Ejusmodi
vocabula Grseca lingua pulcherrima sunt." (Linnets
' Philosophia Botanica,' § 222.)
B O