24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. J}) 



specialists for expression of opinion, and in reply has received the 

 following : 



J. A. Cushman reports : 



I have little to add to the debate on these two names [Lcpidocyclina and 

 Cyclosiphon]. I should try to be consistent and use Cyclosiphon, but as noted 

 in Vaughan's paper here appended, it is a very great doubt as to what was 

 meant by Ehrenberg, and his types are certainly not at all helpful. On account 

 of the very great uncertainty, I would advocate the retention of the name 

 Lcpidocyclina in this case. 



When in Berlin in 1927 I exainined the material of Cyclosiphon in the Ehren- 

 berg collection there and found it to consist of various things, mostly glauconitic 

 casts, a considerable portion of which did not even belong to the family 

 Orbitoididae. Of the material which could be referred to an orbitoid none was 

 of sufficient completeness even to be specifically identifiable. 



Evidently Ehrenberg from his description of Cyclosiphon had not seen the 

 Nninmulitcs mantclli which he referred to as his generic description would 

 exclude that species from the genus Cyclosiphon. 



It seems to me very clear from the evidence that no good purpose would result 

 from trying to revive the name Cyclosiphon with all the attendent confusion that 

 would necessarily arise. I, therefore, urge most strongly the retention of the 

 name Lcpidocyclina with Nummulifes mantelli as the type species of both the 

 genus and the typical subgenus. 



T. W. Vaughan, "A Note on the Names Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 

 1856, and Lepidocyclina Giimbel, 1868 ", Journ. Paleontol., vol. 3, 

 no. I, March 1929, pp. 28-29, reviews the case of Lepidocyclina and 

 concludes that : 



Because of confusion surrounding Cyclosiphon, it appears to me undesirable, 

 even unfortunate, to revive that name, and it seems that the use of the name 

 Lcpidocyclina, with Nmnmulites mantelli as the type-species of both the genus 

 and the typical subgenus, should be continued. 



Letter from Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the U. S. Geo- 

 logical Survey, Washington, D. C. : 



The proposition for suspension of the Rules in zoological nomenclature for the 

 purpose of retaining the two generic names Lcpidocyclina and Nummulites has 

 been considered by all of the Geological Survey paleontologists now in Wash- 

 ington whose work involves the use of zoological names. While the workers of 

 this group subscribe to the rule of priority for general use they are unanimous 

 in their recommendation that the rule should be suspended in its application to 

 the two names above mentioned so that they may be continued in use. 



The signed statements of the several paleontologists are attached. 

 Letters from Survey paleontologists : 



In the case of a generic name which has been in long and general usage there 

 seems nothing to be lost and much to be gained by retaining it, even though some 

 one mav discover that an older, practically unknown name has priority over it. 



