6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. "2) 



species referred to them are those suppressed as noiiiiiia nuda (e. g., Sozverbya 

 d'Orbigny, vol. i, p. 362, will be rejected in favor of Isodonta Buvignier, 1851, 

 in accordance with current practice) ; in most cases the new genera include 

 previously described species, and genotypes will be available. 



Discussion. — The decision on this case is obviously one of far- 

 reaching importance, and is likely to be cited more or less frequently 

 by various authors in reaching decisions on similar cases. It seemed 

 wise, therefore, to obtain expressions of opinion from a number of 

 specialists in different parts of the world before preparing a formal 

 opinion to be submitted to the Commission for vote. In response to 

 invitations to specialists to discuss the case, the following replies have 

 been received. 



L. R. Cox states : 



In submitting the question of d'Orbigny's " Prodrome " names to the Inter- 

 national Commission, our primary object was to obtain a definite ruling upon a 

 matter in which uncertainty has always existed, the majority of authors having 

 deliberately rejected these names as being accompanied by absolutely inadequate 

 descriptions. It seemed to us that it would be unreasonable to revive his names, 

 with the resulting disappearance of familiar ones, without obtaining some opinion 

 on the matter, and our recommendation was made in the hope that it might be 

 possible to avoid such changes. 



The main objections to our recommendation are : 



1. It would be a dangerous precedent to create, since the validity of several 

 early authors might similarly be questioned. Also, a description which now 

 appears inadequate may have been quite sufficient at a time when fewer species 

 were known. — D'Orbigny, however, writing so late as 1847, cannot be classed 

 with authors half a century and more before him. Descriptive terminology was 

 very well advanced by his time, and in his other works he gives good descriptions 

 and figures, showing that his " Prodrome " descriptions were not intended very 

 seriously. 



2. The " Prodrome " is a work of great merit, and Professor Boule protests 

 against a proposal to set it aside so lightly. — The value of this work for the 

 purpose for which it was compiled is not questioned, but in the Introduction 

 (p. Ivi) d'Orbigny says: "En publiant notre "Prodrome de Paleontologie 

 Stratigraphique " nous n'avons pas eu en vue de decrire des especes." The new 

 names were probably merely introduced in the same way as nomina nuda often 

 get published in lists prior to description of the species, and it is quite certain 

 that d'Orbigny intended to publish proper descriptions in the " Paleontologie 

 Frangaise ", later on. 



3. Even if his descriptions are valueless, his types have always been accessible 

 in Paris.— The idea that the publication of a description is an unimportant 

 formality, the preservation of a type specimen being the chief thing, seems to be 

 current in some quarters, but fortunately not among paleontologists in general. 

 We might just as well accept nomina nuda, where a type specimen is extafit. 



I realize that this is an important test case and it may prove discreet for the 

 Commission to rule once and for all that no specific name published, even with 

 only a single word of comment is to be rejected on the grounds of inadequate 

 description. 



