1898] NOTES AND COMMENTS IS 



regarding the nomenclature of the subdivisions of the Trias. Bittner 

 accuses Mojsisovics of having renamed a stage that he himself had 

 already named, by altering the meaning of his own name of Norisehe. 

 I'.itfner holds that ' Norisehe ' should be retained for the stage to 

 winch Mojsisovics originally applied it, and that Bittner's name 

 ' Ladinische ' should be accepted for the ' sub-norische ' stage, The 

 controversy has been carried on by Bittner with a vehemence winch 

 his English friends have regretted. He has, for example, written 

 papers on Triassic nomenclature entitled ' Mojsisovics ami Public 

 Morals.' The question has now reached a more acute stage, and an 

 appeal has been sent to European geologists by forty-eight Austro- 

 Hungarian geologists, who state the case on behalf of Bittner, and 

 appeal that his system should be adopted. This memorial has 

 called forth several replies. Professor Rudolf Hoernes deplores that 

 Austrian geologists should waste their time in such a dispute ; and a 

 letter to Mojsisovics signed by Professors E. Suess, Diener, Hoernes, 

 Keyer, and Paul, refers to his brilliant zonal work on the Trias, and 

 gives general support to his views on the particular question at 

 is<ue. Professor Rcnevier points out that the term ' Noric ' is pre- 

 occupied in American geology, and therefore should be abandoned 

 from Triassic geology. But fortunately the principle of priority 

 has not yet been adopted in stratigraphy. Mr Renevier's compro- 

 mise is open to the same objection that applies to Bittner's criticism 

 on Mojsisovics. A mere appeal to priority is useless. The better 

 system ought to survive. 



The question at issue may be illustrated by the following 



table : — 



Mu.jsisovn s. Bittner. 



1st Scheme. 2nd Scheme. 



Uppei; . . . Karnische. ... . . Karnische. 



f Juvavische. . . Norisehe. 



\ Norisehe. . . Ladinische. 



Uppki; 



Teias. ) Lower-... Norisehe = 



Bittner's complaint is that Mojsisovics has changed the meaning 

 of the term ' Norisehe ' from the beds to which he first gave it, and 

 applied it to those which Bittner had called ' Ladinische,' and that 

 in order to do that he has proposed the new term of ' Juvavische.' 



We express no opinion on the rights of the controversy, but we 

 oannot help regretting that Herr Bittner's friends should have tried 

 to settle the question suddenly by a referendum to the general 

 body of geologists, whereas it is a question which experts on Triassic 

 stratigraphy would gradually decide by the adoption of the most 

 convenient and suitable classification. Like our Cambro-Silurian 

 controversy time should be allowed to settle the question by the 

 natural process of the survival of the fittest. 



