FORT UNION OF CRAZY MOUNTAIN FIELD, MONT. 5 



could not foresee how important this would have been for his suc- 

 cessors. The available notes are thus fewer and less useful than was 

 anticipated. Specifically, they are as follows: 



1. A field notebook containing a fist of 43 specimens collected by 

 Gidley, with locahty, horizon, and date, but no other data. 



2. Illustrations and proofs of his paper on the Primates, with no 

 unpublished data. 



3. Notes on multituberculates and claenodonts, with no unpublished 

 observations. 



4. Twenty-seven pages of notes and of manuscript in various stages 

 of preparation, with considerable duplication and difterent drafts of 

 treatments of the same subject. These, the only unpublished original 

 observations left by Dr. Gidley, include brief prehminary diagnoses of 

 three new species of Tetraclaenodon, one of Protogonodon, one of Mio- 

 claenus, one of Tricentes, one of Mixodectes, and one of a genus probably 

 considered as new but not named or defined, and also a sketch diag- 

 nosis of a new genus and species of phenacodonts (here called Gidleyina 

 montanensis) . 



As far as they can be deduced from these notes, I have mentioned 

 Dr. Gidley's opinions in the present text. In some cases they warrant 

 detailed discussion and quotation. In others, his notes were clearly 

 of the most preliminary sort and would surely have been modified 

 before publication, and in these cases it has seemed unjust to do more 

 than mention them briefly. As regards the recognition of species, 

 I first studied the collection independently and then ascertained 

 whether any new species (or genera) recognized by me were antici- 

 pated in Dr. Gidley's notes. If they were, I credited them to Gidley, 

 ex ms}, and quoted sufficient of his diagnosis to estabfish his author- 

 ship. The species so recognized are Deuterogonodon montanus, Mimo- 

 tricentes latidens, Tetraclaenodon symbolicus, and Gidleyina montanen- 

 sis. Dr. Gidley's notes also include diagnosis of the genus Gidleyina 

 but under a preoccupied name. 



Some other new forms are recognized in the notes, but without a 

 name or without a diagnosis or definite indication, so that Dr. Gidley 

 could not technically be established as their author, but his recognition 

 of them is mentioned. In a few cases I have been unable to agree that 

 a form tentatively designated as new by Dr. Gidley is so, and then have 

 pointed out this fact but have omitted his names in order not to create 

 useless synonymy. 



None of Dr. Gidley's notes were in such shape that it would have 

 been just to him to publish them without revision, and in any event 

 only a small part of this memoir is affected by his unpubfished notes. 



> The International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 21, state that the author of a scientific name 

 is he who first publishes it with a valid definition "unless it is clear from the contents of the publication that 

 some other person is responsible for said name and its Indication, definition, or description." This validates 

 Gidley's authorship of these species published by me. 



