No. 3.] MISCELLANEOUS. 367 



afterwards not one single member of the Geological Survey, or of 

 the Geological Society, ever hears of the existence of their 

 pamphlet. In the meantime the palaeontologist of the British 

 Survey publishes his genus openly and fairly, in the Journal of 

 the Geological Society. Several weeks afterwards he hears from 

 Russia, that it had been previously published in London by the 

 very two gentlemen to whom he had lent the specimens. I 

 cannot believe that British Naturalists in general would consider 

 it right to suppress his work. 



I am informed also that Prof. Hall says I have violated the 

 agreement relating to New York fossils, by publishing species 

 found in the United States. This is simply a misrepresentation 

 of the statement of the case. The different Surveys in the 

 United States are quite independant of each other. The Direc- 

 tor of any Survey can consult any palaeontologist he thinks proper. 

 I have never described a single fossil from any one of the States 

 where Prof. Hall was, at the time, in any way employed. But 

 I have examined a number of species for those Surveys with 

 which he has no connection. 



In one of the letters I have received, it is stated with reference 

 to publication, that "■ No determined rules or laws have been 

 hitherto settled or followed." With the highest respect for the 

 author of this opinion, I cannot agree with him. There are laws 

 which result from the very nature of the circumstances to which 

 they relate. These laws exist perpetually, although not estab- 

 lished by legislative enactment, and although they may be disre-- 

 garded and transgressed by any number of persons. The law of 

 publication is one of these. Every true naturalist feels that such 

 a law does exist, and that it is his duty to observe it. We can 

 scarcely imagine a reason for its non-observance. The loss by 

 fire, urged in this case, is surely not a sufficient excuse, because 

 any scientific journal on the continent would have re-published 

 the pamphlet for Prof. Hall, free of charge. On the other hand, 

 there can be no law in favor of private distribution, for the simple 

 reason that it affords so many facilities for the performance of 

 unfair transactions. If distributed so widely that the require- 

 ments of science are satisfied, a book becomes of authority, but this 

 has not been done in the case of Prof. Hall's pamphlet. On the 

 contrary, he seems to have shunned publicity. I am well aware 

 that the law of publication is not always followed. All that I 

 contend for is, that owing to the extraordinary circumstances of 

 the instance under discussionj it should be strictly adhered to. 



