many of the nomenclatural points met with in biology will not occur in
philology, some of them do occur and may be governed by the same rules.

Perhaps an ideal nomenclature in biology may some time be established,
as attempts have been made to establish such a system in chemistry; and
possibly such an ideal system may eventually be established in
philology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet come even for its
suggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some kind leading scholars
to use the same terms for the same things, and it would seem to matter
little in the case of linguistic stocks what the nomenclature is,
provided it becomes denotive and universal.

In treating of the languages of North America it has been suggested that
the names adopted should be the names by which the people recognize
themselves, but this is a rule of impossible application, for where the
branches of a stock diverge very greatly no common name for the people
can be found. Again, it has been suggested that names which are to go
permanently into science should be simple and euphonic. This also is
impossible of application, for simplicity and euphony are largely
questions of personal taste, and he who has studied many languages loses
speedily his idiosyncrasies of likes and dislikes and learns that words
foreign to his vocabulary are not necessarily barbaric.

Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes and
names a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus used to
become permanently affixed, but under certain conditions adapted to a
growing science which is continually revising its classifications. This
law of priority may well be adopted by philologists.

By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally happen