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 & priority¹ —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.—² I have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear owing to wrong dates in Agassiz,³ & 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^d not like to do so without I found others approved & in some public way—nor indeed is it well adopted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which fortunately I have in many cases in Brit. Museum.— Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, as never putting mihi or Darwin after my own species & in Anatomical text giving no author’s names at all, as the systematic Part will serve for those who want to know History of species as far as I can imperfectly work it out.—

I have had a note from W. Thompson this morning & he tells me Ogleby⁴ 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^d. rather (as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work, than to the original author, for I have cases of this, which hardly help me at all, for I know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign papers.— On the other hand one can get hold of most systematic works, & so follow up scent & a species does not long lie buried exclusively in a paper.—

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:⁵ [Oken?]⁶ 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.—

I sh^d have had no doubt, if Lepas aurita & vittata had been made into two genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two w^d have been retained.— Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers’ definition & opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two species.—⁷

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^d get rid of difficulty of 2^d Edit of Hill & of difficulty of Anatifera vel Anatifa.⁸

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 w^d. be wonderfully thus suited.—

If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your consent.—