138 The Ottawa Naturalist. [Feb. 



find till halfway through that the writer was dealing with a 

 moth, while the reader was searching for information about a 

 trilobite. As specialization goes on, we paleontologists will 

 probably forget that moths exist, so why not let each group 

 have its own set of names? But such a thought immediately 

 suggests the confusion that would inevitably result, and one is 

 driven back to the present rules. That the following of the 

 rules works a certain hardship, I am fully aware, but that 

 it produces confusion, I deny. We all dislike a change, and 

 we hate to see well known things travelling under unfamiliar 

 names. But it is remarkable how quickly we assimilate new 

 names, and, after we once get them, how pleased we are with 

 our new possessions. The very fact that they are new and 

 arouse antagonism in us, fixes them in our memory, and they 

 are further emphasized, because we make it a point to tell 

 everyone what a mess Blank is making of our old familiar genera. 



As an illustration of how quickly new names are adopted, 

 one may cite the cases of Orthis, Strophomena, and Leptcena. 

 From 1847 to 1892, those names were constantly on the tongue 

 of every American paleontologist. Between 1892 and the end 

 of the century we had learned a new meaning for each of these 

 names, and had also learned some two dozen new generic names 

 for some of the species formerly known by the names cited. 

 It is quite certain that if we of this generation would straighten 

 out our system of names, the next generation would never realize 

 that it had meant any struggle. 



In preparing a review of some of the genera of trilobites 

 for a publication soon to be issued, I have tried to eliminate some 

 of the names, which, according to the rules, do not have a lawful 

 standing. As the changes have affected some very well known 

 names, I have been asked to prepare a statement showing the 

 grounds on which the alterations were made. 



Some of the cases are very simple and they may be presented 

 first. Jaekel 1 has recently proposed ten new genera among the 

 Agnostidae, but six of the names have to be rejected, because 

 he did not recognize prior workers in the field. He proposed 

 Paragnostus, with Agnostus rex as the type, but this same 

 species is the type of Condylopyge, Corda," which must of course 

 remain the proper name for this group. He further proposed 

 Dichagnostus with A. granulatus as the type, thus duplicating 

 Corda's Pleuroctenium, which must stand. Jaekel proposed 

 Mesagnostus, with A. integer, Beyrich, as the type, but Corda 

 had already used this species as the type of Peronopsis. Miag- 



1 Zeit. d. Deutch. Geol. Ges., vol. 61, pp. 380-401, 1909. 



* Prodrom efner Monographic der bohemischen Trilobiten, 1847. 



