1913] The Ottawa Naturalist. 27 



nons semble compliquee. II nous appartient pas de la rdsoudre, 

 et dans le doute, nous avons adopte" le nom general ement admis 

 dans tous les pays, et que nous voyons introduit jusqu'en 

 Amerique, par J. Hall, dans son bel ouvrage sur la Pale'ontologie 

 de New-York." 5 



The next year, Salter", in speaking of the name Trinucleus 

 savs: "The name of the genus can only be retained by general 

 consent, for the typical species was formerly denominated 



Cryptolithus, and sufficiently descril ed by Green;" "But 



in this case strict priority may be allowed to yield to classical 

 feeling." In 1854, Angelin 7 used the family name Crypto- 

 lithid.v though he employed Trinucleus for the genus. 



From 1854 to 1890 Cryptolithus seems to have been pretty 

 effectually submerged, but attention was drawn to it in the latter 

 year by Vogdes s . who says of Cryptolithus: "This generic name 

 should replace that of Trinucleus" ; and again: "Sir. R. I. 

 Murchison has revived this old name of Lhwyd's, and all subse- 

 quent paleontologists have adopted it. Lhwyd's description 

 meant no more than the general name trilobite of the more 

 modern writers, and could not, except by courtesy, set aside 

 Dr. Jacob Green's genus Cryptolithus." 



Thus we may divide the users of these names into three 

 classes: first, those writers who from 1832 to 1851 used Crypto- 

 lithus; second, those who, like Hall, Barrande, and their follow- 

 ers, turned to Trinucleus on the ground of supposed priority; 

 and third, men like Murchison, Salter, and many modern writers, 

 who knew that Cryptolithus had priority, but who preferred the 

 better name. On the mere ground of sentiment, which of 

 course should have no weight at all, there would seem to be as 

 much in iaxor of Cryptolithus as Trinucleus , and as a matter of 

 simple justice everything points to the former name. The only 

 argument against returning to Cryptolithus is the one of present 

 convenience, and I must admit that is, practically, a very 

 weighty argument. Trinucleus has gotten such a firm hold 

 upon us that it will take more than ordinary courage to give it 

 up. And it should be pointed out that we are in a fair way to 

 saddle ourselves with more cases of this same kind. It will be 

 interesting to see whether present day paleontologists are going 

 to allow such names as some of those recently proposed by 

 Jaekel for Agnostid genera or the still more flagrant Glockeria of 



"Systeme silurien du centre de la Boheme, vol. 1, p. 610, 1852. 

 "Memoirs Geol. Sur. Unit. Kingdom, Dec. 7, p. 5, 1853. 

 7 Palaeontologia Scandinavica. Pars 1. Fasc. 2, p. 64 of 3d ed., 1878. 

 'Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, No. 63, pp. 107, 148. 



