74 NATURAL SCIENCE. Feb., 



prefer to leave without epithet. In a fair-minded discussion their 

 arguments should not be given undue weight. From the point of 

 view of pure science the only advantage that can be ascribed to the 

 preliminary notice is that the writer of it may possibly have his 

 mistakes corrected and additional information given to him before he 

 commits himself to quarto form. But a worker in love with his 

 subject is usually in sufficient touch with his colleagues to obtain 

 criticism, advice, and information through the simple medium of the 

 Post Office, without airing his half-baked opinions before the world at 

 large. 



On the other hand, the charges that may be brought against the 

 preliminary notice are varied and weighty. It affords undoubted 

 inducement to a writer to scamp his work, since he salves his 

 conscience with the thought of that wonderful and richly illustrated 

 paper that is to establish his reputation — some day. Mean- 

 while, his readers are presented with statements of irritating in- 

 sufficiency and of doubtful validity, excused, perhaps, by some such 

 remark as that the periodical in which they appear is " not a per- 

 manent medium of publication," and that those people who, owing to 

 their private sources of information, are able to understand the state- 

 ments, find this preliminary publication of considerable service. The 

 less fortunate public wishes that such people would be content with 

 their private sources of information. Though the foundling be cast 

 upon the world, there is still much fear that it may never reach 

 maturity. Countless accidents may prevent the publication of the 

 completed work. There are, indeed, instances of preliminary notices 

 that have been calmly thrown over by their reputed parents, owing to 

 some doubt cast upon their legitimacy. Other notices, again, when 

 they have served their turn, are not alluded to in the final monograph, 

 an action that is distinctly ungenerous. As a result, even the priority- 

 monger becomes involved in some confusion, for a species may be 

 introduced as new, although the curious bibliographer knows that it 

 was really published two years ago. But two years is a long time, 

 and it is often found that names have undergone such transformation 

 in the interval that the connection between the preliminary and the 

 final form is hard to recognise. Even in many cases that do not deal 

 with species or their names, but with presumed additions to our 

 knowledge of scientific facts, it is eventually found that the chief 

 result of the preliminary notice has been to start a number of errors 

 upon their eternal career. 



If, after all that has here been urged, it still be maintained by 

 any of our readers that under certain circumstances the preliminary 

 notice is a necessity, let us at least ask that the statements published 

 in it shall have been verified with as much care as those of the final 

 monograph, and that any new species therein introduced shall be pro- 

 vided with diagnoses that are not merely diagnostic, but also intelli- 

 gible to every worker. Even fossils, whether from the Eocene of the 



