NO. 8 Ol'INlONS 124 TO 133 17 



6. 'J'o retain or reject a species according as the type specimen is 

 considered satisfactory or not is to introduce personal o])inion ( A.). 



7. In some cases, as admitted by Houlc, and as testified 1)\- Arkcll. 

 d'Orbigny's type specimens are not satisfactory. 



8. D'Orbigny's names were often fantastic and given without 

 th(jught. 



On the preceding arguments, the following comments may be made : 



I, 2, and 4. Undoul)tedly d'Orbigny did not intend his remarks as 

 " descriptions," but it is not so sure that he did not intend them as 

 provisional diagnoses, sufiftciently clear to enable the s])ecies to be 

 identified. Whatever his intentions may have been, the fact is that he 

 fulfilled the requirements of the Code. 



The question of confusion does not necessarily depend on ilu- inade- 

 quacy of the '' Prodrome" diagnoses; still the applicants make that 

 so large a part of their argument that the justice of the charge must be 

 considered. It has been pointed out that the adequacy of a definition 

 must be decided with regard to the knowledge of the time, and the 

 applicants attempt to show that contemporaries could not understand 

 the " Prodrome " diagnoses. Their examples are all drawn from the 

 Oolitic jMollusca and from Morris and Lycett. Even were they justi- 

 fied in this regard, it does not follow that other groups and other 

 specialists were in similar case. T have therefore looked into some of 

 the echinoderm species, as well as into the molluscan. 



First, it does not appear what steps Morris and Lycett took to 

 understand the " rrodrome." D'Orbigny lays great stress in his intro- 

 duction on horizon and locality, and it has already been decided liy the 

 Commission that such details when given are to be taken into account. 

 Did Morris and Lycett attempt this? In nearly every case where they 

 adopt one of d'Orbigny's new names, they do so without comment ; 

 only under Opis pnlchella d'Orb. do they indicate that they ha\e made 

 the necessarv comparison, and they say : " The experience derived 

 from a multitude of examples leaves no room to doubt that .... 

 d'Orb'ujuy has correctly indicated its distinctive characters in the brief 

 sentence al)ove quoted." 



Morris and Lycett took over d'Orbigny's names in enough instances 

 to show that they did not regard his diagnoses as inadequate ; they 

 did not, so far as I can see, express any opinion on the matter. There 

 is no evidence, except that just quoted, that they ever troul)le(I to 

 examine specimens from the type locality. 



The evidence bearing on the new echinoderm si)ecies of the " Pro- 

 drome " is far more satis factorv. 



