To the Royal Geographical Society   November 1876

On the rules of priority of geographic names.

by Baron Ferd. von Mueller, C.M.G., M.D., FRS., F.R.G.S.

"Suum cuique."¹

It might be fairly supposed, that the appellations of geographic localities were ruled by the same laws, which establish and maintain priority for names in other branches of natural science; — but in reality it is not so, and we see even now a days very frequently well recorded names of ranges, rivers or other geographic features set aside on the slightest pretext of excuse, or even without any reason whatever, unless it be the vanity of an explorer, to stamp new names on the map at the expense of his predecessors in the field; or more easily still the compiler of a map may over rule the work of a real geographer. In the naming of animals and plants well acknowledged rules are universally adopted and respected, rules quite as well understood as in matters of rank or fortune the law of primogeniture. In geographic science it is very different; laxity of nomenclature is indeed often noticed, and such prevails particularly in reference to newly discovered regions. I have always held, that it is not sufficient reason to change the name of a well known mountain or watercourse, because the original discoverer with inadequate instruments in a hurriedly forced progress and under early disadvantages did not place all his positions with absolute accuracy on his map. Neither would there be sufficient cause to alter the name of a main watercourse to that of a tributary, the latter discovered perhaps even at a more recent date than the main-stream; nor ought the name of a prominent hight or any other landmark, which is easily again recognized, receive a new name, simply because the first bearings from its summit or the first measuring of its altitude admitted subsequently of corrections.²

Some difficulty however will occasionally arise, to fix a final appellation. Thus for instance in the colony Victoria we have two rivers Avon, not to speak of several other streams in Australia, bearing the name of their British prototypes. But just as in England a distinction is adopted between the Upper and Lower Avon, so might ours here be called the Western and Eastern Avon; but all such changes of names or additions to them should be governed by laws, laid down by geographic science, and such laws would carry with them an authority, to which the whole world would bow.

Names, given by the aborigines to the waters, mountains or other features of their territory are the most eligible in many instances; but the modern names, bestowed by a geographer, who at the time of discovery and mapping new country came never in contact with the natives, may come into extensive use, before the native appellations are ascertained. The latter moreover may be only so to say generic, embracing a general term in their language; hence it requires not only tact, but also some knowledge of the idiom of a language, before from it a geographic name (perhaps not of specific meaning) is adopted.

Tribes also in the same country have sometimes distinct names in the different dialects for mere portions of a range or river or lake, which may stretch through the hunting grounds of several nomadic tribes. Perhaps one of the geographic Congresses might be induced to frame a code for a rigerous³ nomenclature. The objects of these lines are now merely, to draw attention to much injustice, frequent uncertainty, perplexing confusion and reiteration and many anomalies, which a geographic forum might check or set right by the weight of its influence. It is particularly a poor reward to a bygone explorer, to change or obliterate without cause the very names, which under dangers toils and privations, — understood by very few —, did arise; while it is equally unjust to destroy simultaneously the dedications without any regard to those, to whose memory a geographer may have wished to erect a lasting monument.⁴

Melbourne,

November 1876.