“As there is no matter of such great importance in a catalogue as the correct naming of the objects described in it, this part of the subject has engaged a very large share of attention in preparing the work. I am not sanguine enough to suppose that the names I have adopted—always after careful research and consideration—will in every case be deemed satisfactory by other zoologists, yet I hope that some advance will have been made towards that most desirable end—a fixed and generally recognised nomenclature of all the best-known species of mammals. Having selected the generic and specific name which I considered most appropriate, I have given the place and date of their first occurrence, but have only admitted such synonyms as have found their way into standard works, judging it better that the remainder should be buried in oblivion, or at all events only retained in professedly bibliographical treatises. In selecting the name chosen, I have been mainly guided by the views which have been gradually gaining general currency among conscientious naturalists of all nations, and which were formulated in what is commonly called the Stricklandian Code, adopted by a Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1842, and revised and reprinted by the Association in 1865, and again in 1878.... The regulations laid down in these codes for the formation of new names are unimpeachable; and although some of the rules for the selection of names already in existence have given rise to criticism, and are occasionally difficult of practical application when an endeavour is made to enforce them too rapidly, they do in the main, when interpreted with discretion and common-sense, lead to satisfactory results. As what we are aiming at is simply convenience and general accord, and not abstract justice or truth, there are cases in which the rigid law of priority, even if it can be ascertained, requires qualification, as it is certainly not advisable to revive an obsolete or almost unknown name at the expense of one, which if not strictly legitimate, has been universally accepted and become thoroughly incorporated in zoological and anatomical literature; and it is often better to put up with a small error or inconvenience in an existing name than to incur the much larger confusion caused by the introduction of a new one.”