1898] NOTES AND COMMENTS 13 
regarding the nomenclature of the subdivisions of the Trias. Bittner 
accuses Mojsisovics of having renamed a stage that he himself had 
already named, by altering the meaning of his own name of Norische. 
Bittner holds that ‘ Norische’ should be retained for the stage to 
which Mojsisovics originally applied it, and that Bittner’s name 
‘Ladinische ’ should be accepted for the ‘ sub-norische’ stage. The 
controversy has been carried on by Bittner with a vehemence which 
his English friends have regretted. He has, for example, written 
papers on Triassic nomenclature entitled ‘ Mojsisovics and Public 
Morals.’ The question has now reached a more acute stage, and an 
appeal has been sent to European geologists by forty-eight Austro- 
Hungarian geologists, who state the case on behalf of Bittner, and 
appeal that his system should be adopted. This memorial has 
called forth several replies. Professor Rudolf Hoernes deplores that 
Austrian geologists should waste their time in such a dispute ; anda 
letter to Mojsisovics signed by Professors E. Suess, Diener, Hoernes, 
Reyer, and Paul, refers to his brilliant zonal work on the Trias, and 
gives general support to his views on the particular question at 
issue. Professor Renevier points out that the term ‘ Noric’ is pre- 
occupied in American geology, and therefore should be abandoned 
from Triassic geology. But fortunately the principle of priority 
has not yet been adopted in stratigraphy. Mr Renevier’s compro- 
mise is open to the same objection that applies to Bittner’s criticism 
on Mojsisovics. A mere appeal to priority is useless. The better 
system ought to survive. 
The question at issue may be illustrated by the following 
table :— 
MossIsovics, BITTNER. 
| i — ae aN 
Ist Scheme. 2nd Scheme, 
Upper... Karnische. pee : .  Karnische, 
UPPER ae 
; Juvavische. . .  Norische. 
TRIAS. ) Lower... Norische = ‘ a 
Norische. : .  Ladinische. 
Bittner’s complaint is that Mojsisovics has changed the meaning 
of the term ‘ Norische’ from the beds to which he first gave it, and 
apphed it to those which Bittner had called ‘ Ladinische, and that 
in order to do that he has proposed the new term of ‘ Juvavische.’ 
We express no opinion on the rights of the controversy, but we 
cannot help regretting that Herr Bittner’s friends should have tried 
to settle the question suddenly by a referendum to the general 
body of geologists, whereas it is a question which experts on Triassic 
stratigraphy would gradually decide by the adoption of the most 
convenient and suitable classification. Like our Cambro-Silurian 
controversy time should be allowed to settle the question by the 
natural process of the survival of the fittest. 
