NO. 8 OPIXIOXS 124 TO 133 II 



graphique Universelle " (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be considered as nomina 

 Hilda and shall have no status in nomenclature unless they are accompanied by 

 a reference to a description or figure published by some previous author has 

 been considered by the paleozoologists of the Geological Survey who are now in 

 Washington. A review of the individual opinions submitted indicates, with one 

 exception, general agreement in the view that each of d'Orbigny's new species 

 published in his " Prodrome " should stand on its own merits and that those 

 that have been or can be identified should be accepted as valid. The Survey 

 paleontologists who subscribe to this view are Charles Butts, C. Wythe Cooke, 

 George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, John B. Reeside, Jr., P. V. Roundy, T. W. 

 Stanton, and L. W. Stephenson. A dissenting view is expressed by Edwin Kirk, 

 who states that he thinks that the proposition submitted by Messrs. Cox and 

 Arkell is sound and he concurs in the stand they take. 



R. S. Bassler and Charles E. Resser, paleontologists of the United States 

 National Museum, wish to be recorded as in favor of the majority opinion given 

 above. 



Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, submits the fol- 

 lowing opinion : 



I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination these names could be 

 considered nomina niida if they are accompanied by short descriptions. Further- 

 more, these descriptions, it would appear to me, will be found probably in almost 

 all instances recognizable when one has ample collections from the locality in 

 question which, as the two authors state, is always cited. 



I have read, at tiines, through pages of descriptions, and have found it quite 

 difficult to pull out the few things that differentiated the species or subspecies in 

 question from another form closely allied to it, and I have frequently longed that 

 the author would give just a few brief diagnostic characters. 



If specialists, working with the fauna in question, are unable from the short 

 description and the name to fix upon a proper candidate for the name, then it 

 seems to me that the species in question will have to be relegated to the unre- 

 cognizable group and left there until some wise man is capable of rescuing it 

 from that limbo. 



Dr. H. A. Pilsbry. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 

 reports : 



The new names in d'Orbigny's " Prodrome " are not all so curtly defined as 

 the examples given by Messrs. Cox and Arkell. Some are sufficiently defined by 

 comparative characters for recognition and have been generally recognized. To 

 reject all these names as nomina niida would be inexact. Aloreover, such an 

 Opinion might open the question of adequacy of definition in enough other cases 

 to swamp the Commission. 



I believe it the wiser course to leave new names in d'Orbigny's " Prodrome " 

 to be dealt with individually by the paleontologists interested. 



These documents were submitted to Commissioner Bather, who 

 has prepared the following discussion of the case: 



The application by Messrs. Cox and Arkell raises many difficult 

 questions. This must be my excuse for a somewhat long discussion 

 before proceeding to submit an 0])inion. 



