26 The Ottawa Naturalist. [May 



A FURTHER NOTE ON CRYPTOLITHUS VERSUS 



TRINUCLEUS. 



By Percy E. Raymond. 



Judging from the protests which I have received since the 

 publication of my note on "Some Changes in the Names of the 

 Genera of Trilobites" in the February number of the Natur- 

 alist, there is a deep and universal feeling against giving up 

 the familiar name Trinucleus. It is readily admitted by all 

 that the name Trinucleus has no standing, but it has existed so 

 long and has become so familiar, that the general opinion seems 

 to be that it would be unwise to give it up now. It is interesting 

 to note how this same feeling has come down through the litera- 

 ture. It will be remembered that Cryptolithus was described 

 in 1832 by Green 1 , who gave a recognizable description and 

 figure. In describing Trinucleus in 1839, Murchison 2 cites 

 Cryptolithus as a synonym of the Trinucleus, Lhwyd, 1698, but 

 after his generic description he adds: "Seeing that these dis- 

 tinctions, as above defined, prevail in several species of Trilo- 

 bites, I have formed them into a new genus under an old name 

 assigned to one species of an animal of this kind of Lhwyd." 



In this same year, Emmrich 3 referred four of Murchison's 

 species to Cryptolithus, and Goldfuss in 1843 also used Crypto- 

 lithus, as did Emmrich again in 1845. In these same years, 

 however, (1840-1845), Milne-Edwards, Eichwald, Burmeister, 

 Munster, Portlock, and Loven all used Trinucleus , either under 

 the influence of the prestige of Murchison, or for the reason 

 which influenced Hall 4 in 1847 in "adopting the generic name of 

 Lhwyd as given by Murchison." Hall evidently believed in 

 priority, but the third edition of Linnaeus had not then been 

 fixed upon as the point beyond which one should not go in 

 reviving old names. 



Barrande, in 1852, gave a good resume" of the uses of the 

 names, and while he decided for Trinucleus on account of 

 priority, he says: "Quelques savans, au nombre desquels nous 

 distinguons Bronn et Goldfuss, ont maintenu le nom de Crypto- 

 lithus qui, sous certains reports, a le droit de priority. La 

 plupart des palontologues ont employe" de preference la denomi- 

 nation plus ancienne de Trinucleus, bien qu'elle date d'une 

 poque ou la nomenclature systmatique n'etait pas encore in- 

 troduite dans la science. II y a la une question de droit, qui 



'Monthly American Journal of Geology, vol. 1, No. 12, p. 560, 1832. 



2 Silurian System, p. 659, pi. 23, 1839. 



: 'De Trilobitis, etc., p. 49, 1839. 



4 Paleontology New York, vol. 1, p. 249, 1847. 



