HES's letter will fructify to some extent: CD will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue and priority. Would not adopt his own notion in cirripede book without prior approval by others. Will not append "Darwin" to any of his species. Feels sure many others share his aversion.
Asks HES's opinion on retention of generic name Conchoderma.
Down Farnborough Kent
My dear Strickland
I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall fructify to some extent & I will try to be more faithful to rigid virtue & priority —but as for calling Balanus Lepas (which I did not think of) I cannot do it, my pen won't write it— it is impossible.— I have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear owing to wrong dates in Agassiz, & to my having to turn several genera into one for I have as yet gone in but few cases to original sources.—
With respect to adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I sh
I have had a note from W. Thompson this morning & he tells me
Ogleby has some scheme identical almost with mine: I feel
pretty sure there is a growing & general aversion, to the appendage of
author's name, except in cases where necessary.— Now at this moment I
have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name & no reference: such are
hopelessly inconvenient, but I declare I w
I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting me with your opinion, & I will not trespass much.— I have a case, but about which I am almost sure & so to save you writing, if I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, & I shall understand silence as assent.—
Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn into the genus Conchoderma: [Oken?] in 1815 gave name Branta to Lepas aurita & vittata & by so doing he alters essentially Olfers generic definition.— Oken was right (as it turns out) & Lepas aurita & vittata must form together one genus. (I leave out of question a multitude of subsequent synonyms) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers: I cannot make out a precise rule in Brit. Assoc. Report for this: when a genus is cut into two I see that old name is retained for part & altered to it; so I suppose definition may be enlarged to receive another species; though the cases are somewhat different.—
Yours gratefully | C. Darwin
P.S.— Will you by silence give consent to the following?—
Linnæus gives no type to his genus Lepas though L. balanus comes
first.— Several oldish authors have used Lepas, exclusively for the
pedunculate division, & the name has been given to the family &
compounded in sub-generic names.— Now this shows that old authors attached the
name Lepas more particularly to the Pedunculate division.— Now if I were to
use Lepas for Anatifera; I sh
Linnæus generic description is equally applicable to Anatifera &
Balanus, though latter stands first, must this mere precedence rigorously outweigh the
apparent opinion of many old naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Balanus, I
cannot. Everyone will understand by Lepas Anatifera—so that convenience
If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your consent.—
- f1 1225.f1CD was generally able to adhere to the British Association rule of priority. For an exceptional case of departure from the rule see Living Cirripedia (1851): 293–4, where CD gave priority to William Elford Leach's name for Pollicipes on the ground that it had been universally adopted.
- f2 1225.f2See letter from H. E. Strickland, 15 February 1849.
- f3 1225.f3Agassiz 1842–6 and Agassiz 1848.
- f4 1225.f4Probably William Ogilby, Irish barrister and zoologist.
- f5 1225.f5Olfers 1818, pp. 177–8. See letter to H. E. Strickland, 29 January , n. 5.
- f6 1225.f6Lorenz Oken's name was inserted in pencil by Francis Darwin, who has made other editorial comments on this and other CD manuscripts in the Strickland collection. The intended reference is to Oken 1813–25, 3(i): 362.
- f7 1225.f7See letter from H. E. Strickland, 15 February 1849 and n. 4.
- f8 1225.f8See the enclosure to letter to H. E. Strickland, [4 February 1849], case A; and letter from H. E. Strickland, 8 February 1849.