282 Some Further Remarlcs upon the genus Anomalodonta. 



on the ground, that the earlier name had not been "fully defined" 

 he does it, without any i*egard for the truth, because in the discussion 

 of the subject, I said nothing about "fully"' defining a genus or a 

 sub-genus, but did show, that there had never been any attempt at a 

 definition of these words by Meek and Worthen, or Meek alone. He 

 continues his article, however, as follows : 



"No further notice would be taken of the matter, were it not that 

 silence might be construed into acquiescence in views and practices 

 that it is the interest of all working naturalists to di^^countenance. _ In 

 the first place, it is by no means a settled question among naturalists 

 that the same name may not be used for genera in different sub-king- 

 doms, or even in different classes of the same sub-kingdom. Tliis is 

 the practice of some of the best and most renowned naturalists. 

 Troglodytes is constantly used for a genus of apes, and also for a genus 

 of birds, and many other cases might be mentioned. [What others?] 

 I think, however, with Mr. Meek, that it would be better to change 

 the latter name, but he seems to have deferred to the high authority 

 mentioned [what ?] in only provisionally proposing to change it in the 

 case of Opidkoptera. That he did not formally adopt the latter name 

 in the Ohio Report has no bearing on the question. [Indeed !] By- 

 repeating there the previously published note on Opisthoptera, he niani- 

 festly repeats the proposal to substitute the latter name on precisely 

 the same ground that he did at first, namely, in case it should be 

 found generically distinct from Ambonychia and the name Megaptera 

 ■should be objected to. But it would not have altered the case if he 

 had there said nothing about it, or even if he had proposed to retract 

 both Megaptera and Opisthoptera entirely. As soon as the name was 

 published it became the property of science, and he had no more right 

 to dispose of it than any other person." 



"]\Ir. Miller's argument that both Megaptera and Opi-rf/iopfera should 

 be discarded because full generic descriptions of them were not pub- 

 lished, is not, and can not be, sustained by general usage. Even in 

 recent zoology, where it is possible to ascertain clearly all the char- 

 acters, no such rule is generally followed. Such a rule would be 

 utterly inadmissable in the department of fossil shells, because of the 

 exceeding rarity of specimens that are even approximately perfect ; 

 for even in the best specimens the most important features (as, for 

 example, the internal markings and teeth in bivalves) are generally 

 obscured. Consequently, many of the genera of the latter kind of 

 fossil shells have been proposed mainly or entirely upon external 

 characters. The rule w^ould endanger the nama Anomalodonta, be- 

 cause nothing is yet known of the pallial line and pedal muscular 

 scars of that shell, to say nothing about the extraordinary position of 

 the. adductor impression in Mr. Millers figure. Hundreds of cases 

 might be mentioned of genera established upon external characters." 



The misrepresentations above can not be made plainer than by 

 quoting what was said upon the subject by me in the October number 

 of this journal, viz.: 



