MR R. HENRY ON SCIENTIFIC NAMES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2527, 20 August 1902, Page 70

MR R. HENRY ON SCIENTIFIC NAMES.

(By Din'orn-is.) Mr Richard Henry surely, is not in earnest in his wholesale condemnation of the u?o of scientific names contained in a recent article. His being disappointed in a book hardly justifies his desire to upset the ■whole npple-cart of modern science. He is not the first to have got hold of the wrong book, and been rendered savage in consequence. H ; s experience reminds me of something similar that happened to a friend of mine a few years since. My fiiend had recently taken to the study of natural history, and wa« following it up in the best way — that is, investigating the developirent, life-habits, etc., of animals with his own eyes and mind. For the moment he tv as absorbed in caddis-flies- — their aquatic larva?, to be more precise. Feeling the need of a book on the subject, he oidered one, without first ascertaining its price. Having taken for granted that the cost would not exceed two or three half-crowns at most, hi 3 was horrified when, a few months later, the book was delivered, and with it a bill showing the price to be close on £5. It vas a sumptuous volume — no end of fine plates, and the text read like a catalogue, being a classificatory work only. It was the magnum opm, I believe, of the greatest living authority on caddis fiies, and contained, I daresay, everything about these strange insects except the actual particulars my friend wished for, and possibly still lacks, for the episode rather damped his enthusiasm for caddis-flics — it certainly did not kill his interest in natural history in general. And so, when Mr Henry got his bank on fishes and found it a disappointment, he is hardly therefore justified in condemning utterly the entire scheme of scientific classification of which Jiis hard words are the useful bricks. He ask? too much for no visible equivalent. It is like denouncing the universe because one has stumbled over a log; or endorsing the wurds of the Frenchman, who, because he had toothache, expressed emphatic disbelief in the Deity. As an enthusiast in field natural histoiy Mr Henry's aversion to the methods of the precisian are understandable, and to some extent I sympathise with him Such aversions are, however, usually founded upon misconception, of the '"other"' fellow's importance, and, needless to say, tlii-s kind at misconception is common among all clasps of the community. Every man thinks thai his craft is "the" craft — publicans, among themselves, are "the trade"' ; l.iwyers, "the profession".; and parsons, "the cloth."' They all mean the same thing — viz., that each department of activity is to those engaged in it '"the"' occupation. It is the same with many workers in sciente — sach believes that his own branch i 5i 5 of greater consequence than that of his neighbour. The field-naturalist is too often impatient with his brothers who labour in taxonomy, morphology, etc. If they retaliate, these latter say that he who stops nl field study, or collecting rot her, illusti.ttes arrested development. Each is light and each also is wrong, in a way, but the extremist is always wrong. The great pro-gn.-6-j made in knowledge of living nature during the last 100 year*, more particularly timing ;lip List 50, is the fiuit of profound taid intimate research. oomp.ua tive anatomy, physiology, embrj'ology, etc. — the results got from these form much of the basis upon which evolutionary science rest?. A million field naturalists working ior a million years could never have gut within a million miles of such a potent generalisation a= is embodied in the celltJieorv of Sehleiden and Schwaim. Of it it h;is been said th-tt ''No other biologicvl generalisation, s,>ve only the theory of organic tMilution, lu'.s bi ought so many apparently diveise phenomena under a common point of view, or has accomplished mure for the unification of knowledge." It is hdidly liecevaiy to emphasise here the point that without claswirication time can be no true generalisation, for a mere glance t trough the history of biological science makes that perfectly clear. Classification, again, mu&t have a language of its own, and it has it too, and, according to Mr Henry, it is a vilely barbarous Lingo which should be suppressed. That it is a fearful jargon must be admired, but that it can be dispensed with nvist be emjjhatically denied. The world of science can never go b.vck voluntarily to pre-Lnmsean chao.s in matters of scientific nomenclatui^. That, i~> those unaccustomed to use them, scientific names form stumbling blocks of h»rdvc.,d quality is a fact. I know next to nothing of classification myself, but at least know it< importance, and that, unintelligible as it may appear to those who have no n;ed to use it, it is vet the vehicle which lenders science intelligible the world over. Mi- Henry is plainly and patently mistaken in think'iip that they who a*phe to learn pnythnig from books are confronted with an array of "scientific terms'' w hie h they "can nc-vtr learn." The lecturer on botany at our Technical School a few years since •issuied me t?iat all the Latin nece<^ary to render scientific terms as plain as the nose cm one's face could be easily acquired by ar. huur'.s study daily for six month.*. As a mattfr of fact Mr Henry or any other distre^fi scientist may purchase for 3s 6d a dictionary good enough io lift him out of all such «oi,l-Ead'ieuing perplexities. I quite believe that no man was over conv.ittd by ar o i.mfciit, but at lea^t it may be worth while to emphasise the v.thie* of scientific teinT-. I will, therefore, as bnefly as I tan, mak-3 pi.wng allusion to the intioduttum of the binomial s-vsteni of nomenc 1 at iii f in reference to the formle « ch.ios which preceded it<- appearance. If L'nnjru* w;^ not its atui.l inventor hejiM a« wpII might hire be n He did everything for it i.ii'l a gr:tt de.il with it. ard by his in.\t hlr^s pjwer-i of i>ieu-p (]• -ci iption andgmui* for ijikr ri-allv m.tde new things of butii bil .in and zoolotrv, ard in< -cleotally of hLi. i.cc genei-illy It s t m -» dlnujst mfiiedable tlidt uaui iar i£to feb.e ievecteentli

, century science remained in a condition as nebulous as that to "which Mr Henry would seemingly again have it relapse. When we xemember that trivial names are to science what dialect is to language, it must be or.vious that any attempt at systematising knowledge could hardly be attempted until , something more pracise in the way of phraseologj- was invented. Common observation now, as then, confirms what I say. The most ordinary plants that grow are to this day called by endlessly varying names in different localities, and it is the same in regard to animals. One-would think such a plant as honeysuckle must be recognisable everynhtie, but about two years since, walking with some friends in a Keniish htr.e, I was appealed to by a lady to uphold , Ler assertion that a pretty, white-flowered bedge-climbar was honeysuckle. What could one say save that it probably was honeysuckle — in that locality— only, for myself, I had never seen the plant until that moment. I It is the fame even-where — aimless and I endless confusion, to which every newly - i settled community adds something. Thus i in and about Dunedin mapau becomes , "maple,'' and mako-mako "inoki,'' piri-piri j '"bid-a-bid," ar.d poro-poro "bulli-bulli" ; 1 prawns ars "crawfishes,"' ,md crayfishes are 'lobsters." To fill a column with such examples would be easy, but is unnecessary, and it is equally unueoessafy to accept seriously Mr Henry's suggestion that the , English language only should be employed in scientific works. Without any 3oubt the English language is a splendid product of evolution, but it is not at all adapted to .supply a "H orld language, and that is what science requiras. Science is not English, it is universal, and one of the necessary aims of scientific method is to so name each ' species of plant and animal that every ' student everywhere may know by the accompanying description exactly which species is alluded to in any given case. Difficult as mimy of the employed terms are it should be remembered that the present fcystem did not dirplacai anything better I than itself, but sqmething infinitely worse. In Mr Henry's rather cramped view the system is a sad grievance, but in the ranks of science it is recognised as the chief foundation stone of order, and whether or rot order be heaven's first law, it is, for certain, of prime importance in science. Taking this statement for granted, I will now pass on to a necessarily imperfect survey of the process by which the present order, with its terrifying array of double- ! barrelled Greek and Latin names, arose out of old-time chaos. The ancient classifications were numerous and inconsequential; the best that can be feaid about them is that they were "childish in outline and utilitarian in "detail."' 'Herbs, shrubs, and trees"' — these three words 'for many centuries formed the outline of plant I classification ; the details referred to the diseases which the plants were" believed to cure, and in the domain of zoology ideas even more crude prevailed. They_were concerned w ith the edible and the nauseous, the useful and the harmful, in all of which, while there raay have been a dash of common bense, there was but little of scientific value making for order. John Ray (16281705) was the first to define the use of the term "bpecie 1 ? "' and to lay emphasis on anatomical characteristics as a basis of classification. For these reasons he mar, as Professor Ray Lancaster observes, be considered "the father of modern zoology." Thtn came Linnauis (1767-1778), "who established the binomial by stem of nomenclature, and the grades 'of classification (class, order, genus, species, variety). His great work, the^ 'Systema Naturae,' 1 which foims the starting point of modern taxonomy, passed through 12 editions in the course of his lifetime," the twelfth edition leing published 10 years before his death. I l'-ok upon those 12 editions as eloquent testimony £o the fact that the world bddly nseded the work Linnanis did for it. Other celebrities, as Lamarck, pioneer of evolution ; Cuvier, founder of palaeontology ; Yon Baer, founder of embryology ; Haackfl, inventor of genealogical trees, have done much to widen the scope of classification ; but it is with Linnaeus that Mr Henry's quarrel lies. '"To each species Linnuus gave a double name. Thus the lion was called Felis leo and the daisy Bellis perennis, the second name being the specific title, while the fiist name was that of the genu& — a, croup of more or less similar species. Similarly. Linnseus grouped genera* into orders, and orders into classes." The fFelis leo and Bellis perennis are the subject of Mr Heniy"s mistaken and unrighteous indignation ; but all the same they typify the first great and everlastingly useful invention within the leulm of natural history science. Before the work of Ray and Linnam<the term "species" 1 was used quite loosely. as it still is> by the careless conversationalist, who speak* indifferently of "the fish species 1 " or "ihe human species." According to Ray. however, all similar individuals which exhibit constant characters from generation to generation form a species, and should be called by a particular name. Thus there is in Biitain one species of daisy, but there aie several species of buttercups. How, it may be asked, could anyone define which species of buttercup he had occasion to mention in less than two words? That is the essence of the binomial nomenclature — simply the briefest and best way of doing the necessary thing ; in short, a <-troke of genius entitling its author to the re\erence of thinking men everywhere and for all time That Greek and Latin form the medium by which ibis deft "scientific trick" is made universally useful is due partly to the fact that the eaily scientists wrote in the c!a e f>it, tongue, but chiefly because both Greek and Latin n'e immensely superior for purposes of tci=e description to any modern language. Another mistake into which Mr Henry ha.s fallen is embodied in his statement that theie are no simply-worded books dealing with pant and animal posts. What of the late Mi^s Onnerod's book.*, etc.? — products of li<-r Ixlf lone; labours in th>s department r.f <-( ientific work Her woiks, are simply clajsiics ia this line of sciem/fLc activity*

[ and are fully appreciated as suck fey sensible agriculturists all over Britain and many lands besides. It is pleasing to know that their author was respected and honoured in her life and regretted in her death by thousands whom her scientific labours had benefited. Our own "NewZealand Leaflets for Fanners," tens of thousands of which have been circulated in the colony, are by no means wanting in merit and usefulness. The "Handbooks" of the Victorian Department of Agriculture are admirable productions, their numerous plates, illustrating all manner of "pests." being simply perfect in their way. All these publications and many others one might name* could be read and understood easily by any ordinary schoolboy, and I feel quite sure Mr Henry would admit as much on perusing them himself. Mr Henry is quite mistaken also in thinking that Messrs Hutchinson's "Living Races of Mankind" and "Living Animals of the World" are likely to be of any "practical"' use to him or anyone else. Ido nob remember that the publishers have ever hinted at such a 'claim for their productions. These works are excellently calculated to do that ■which they are meant to do — amuse intelligent children and grownups whoso taste for natural history has been nurtured on the "snippet" press. The photographs upon which Mr Henry lays such unduly stressful import he will find but a rotten reed for his purpose. Soma of them are from nature and are first-rat©^ pictures ; more of them are from drawings' and stuffed specimens, and if, like myself, Mr Henry is an Old Country man, h» will be likely to recognise in those "living pictures" many an old acquaintance last seen behind the glass of museum cases.