Abstract
IN the admirable review of Dr. Daydon Jackson's “Linnæus” (NATURE, November 17) there is one paragraph (last on p. 715) from which I am not sure that I extract all the meaning. This may be because I am a systematic zoologist and not a botanist; but I did begin my work on those lines with the study of Linné's “Philosophia botanica.” That book taught me that the nomen triviale was no entity, merely a part of the nomen specificum, which consists of the nomen genericum qualified by the nomen triviale. Thus, “man” being the genus, “a good man” is the species; but “good” cannot stand apart from “man,” for it is relative to “man” alone. Now take your good man and make him an admiral; he may be a bad admiral. Is that what the reviewer means? Does he imply that, if a species be rightly transferred to another genus, the nomen triviale is open to change? If this be his meaning, then it seems to ignore the distinction between a mere name and an epithet. When Jane Smith, marries John Brown, she becomes (by custom) Jane Brown. She may thereby even change her nationality, but she remains Jane, and that is how we identify her, although “Jane” by itself is meaningless.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BATHER, F. Linnean Nomenclature. Nature 112, 830 (1923). https://doi.org/10.1038/112830b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/112830b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.