1917.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 79 



find that oquirrhensis has very strong ribs and is keeled, agreeing: 

 with specimens he distributed under that name and with our material 

 from Sta. 120; while in his gabbiana the spirals are quite weak or 

 nearly obsolete, with the periphery compressed into a distinct keel^ 

 the primary spirals being usually visible to the unaided eye, the 

 secondaries visible under a lens, thus agreeing in all respects with 

 the material from our Sta. 15. It has distinctly the two series of 

 spirals characteristic of the haydeni group — a few ribs, with inter- 

 calated riblets. Our stations 14 and 119 specimens, which we 

 consider of the utahensis form, are well angled, but the periphery is 

 not pinched into a keel. There is perhaps a little greater variation 

 in the altitude of the spire. The spiral sculpture is weaker, and in 

 most examples the microscopic riblets are crowded and subequal, 

 instead of a few stronger ribs with intercalated riblets. However, 

 in a few examples the compound spiral sculpture is distinctly present, 

 thus forming a series grading into the form gabbiana. Viewed in 

 mass, material from stations 14 and 119 can be distinguished at once 

 from that found at Sta. 15, and Sta. 15 material can be distinguished 

 from that found at Sta. 120, but plenty of individuals are found to 

 connect them all. If anyone insists upon considering these forms 

 sufficiently distinct, in spite of complete intergradation, to merit 

 separate names, then utahensis should be applied to the Sta. 14 form, 

 as it is usually "destitute of the revolving ribs [not of the riblets] of 

 haydeni,' ' a description not at all fitting other forms from this region. 

 In selecting a name, it would seem most natural to select the one 

 occurring first in the original publication, though all occur on the 

 same page in Hemphill's letter to Binney. That would be utahensis. 

 The same thing would result if we select the first one in Binney's 

 notes, as utahensis precedes oquirrhensis and gabbiana by one page. 

 We have seen the difficulty of recognizing u'ohensis, while oquirrhensis 

 is well figured and sufficiently described. The confused description 

 and figure do not satisfy the priority rule requiring a name to be 

 accompanied by a description, in order to be accepted. Part of 

 the description flatly contradicts the Hemphill specimens, which 

 would otherwise perhaps enable us to definitely decide what the 

 name applied to. The rules of nomenclature justify the selection 

 of the name oquirrhensis, instead of utahensis, under the circum- 

 stances. Especially is this course justified by Art. 28 of the Inter- 

 national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which provides that 

 "if the names are of the same date, that selected by the first reviser 

 shall stand," and recommendation b, that a specific name accom- 



