Ven-ill, Notes on Radiata. 573 



Hemipholis gracilis Verriii. 



Those Trans, p. 262 (road Jan., 1867, publisliod March, 1867); Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. 



Hist, xii, p. 391. 

 Hemipholis affinis Ljnng., op. cit, p. 322 (read Nov., 1866. published 1867, note on 



fly-leaf dated May 18, 1867); Lyman, Bulletin M. C. Z., i, p. 336, 1870 



"Ljungman's species from Guayaquil, appears to be identical with 

 II. gracilis. Judging from the date of Prof Loven's note, our name 

 has priority of actual publication." * 



* Mr. Lyman, in the work cited, witliout giving any additional information objects 

 to the remark quoted above, in the following words : " This whole matter of priority in 

 descriptions is of no sort of interest to science, except as a matter of registration. Nor 

 is it protitable to enter on the question of what constitutes publication. But we may 

 say, that the partial distribution of loose sheets of an incomplete paper, though a use- 

 ful and praiseworthy custom, constitutes no greater claim (or priority than the reading 

 of a paper before an ancient and distinguished Academy, and the speedy publication of 

 that paper in its complete and connected form." 



We believe there are very few naturalists, at the present day, who are willing to admit 

 that anything less than the actual printing of descriptions or recognizable figures can 

 give priority to the names of species or genera, and this without reference to the rep- 

 utation or antiquity of the society before which a paper may be read. In case of 

 descriptive papers or diagnose^^, as everyone knows, nothing more than the title is 

 usually read, and many additions are often made afterwards, before or during printing. 

 Therefore if Mr. Ljungman's paper was ^nratec? before March, 1867, his name should be 

 adopted, otherwise not. On this question Mr. Lyman gives us no positive information. 



We notice, however, that Mr. Lyman invariably dates certain of his own species 

 irom their first publication in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of ^Jaturai History, 

 although they were distributed in sheets containing parts of incomplete papers, the 

 mode of publication and distribution being precisely the same in the two cases. And 

 if antiquity of the Society has anything to do with the matter, the advantage is on the 

 side of the Connecticut Academy to the extent of some 40 years ! I am not aware, 

 however, that any member of this Academy would consider himself justified, on th;it 

 account, in claiming priority oi' publication for matters contained in hundreds of commu- 

 -vications made to the Academy during the past 80 years, but not yet printed. 



The qaesti jn of priority of names has, however, an importance far greater than Mr. 

 Lyman's remark would imply, for every working naturalist is painfully conscious of the 

 great amount of time and labor th.it he is constantly obliged to spend in unravelling 

 the intricate synonymy of well known genera and species, most of which has been 

 caused by the careless or willful neglect of the salutary rules of nomenclature, in which 

 priority of puhUcation is one of the most fundamental principles. And whenever a nat- 

 uralist, to save his own time, selfi.-ihly neglects to ascertain the correct synonymy of the 

 species wli ch he de-.cribas or mentions, he is merely heaping up labor for futuri^ nat- 

 uralists, whose time might be much better employed, than in correcting the imperfect 

 work of their predecessors. 



Snuplicily, accuracy, Sind permanency of nomenclature are, therefore, of vast im^iort- 

 ance for tlie future development of Zoology, and whatever cintributes to this end wj 

 regard as far more worthy of careful attention, than any .slight personal honor or dis- 

 honor that may be connected with the naming of species or genera, whether new or ol 1. 



