PROGRESS OF MICROSCOPICAL SCIENCE. 41 
by A. 8S. Packard, jun., and which forms vol. x. of the final reports of 
the United States Geological Survey of the Territories, F. V. Hayden 
in charge, the author has gone very minutely into the subject of the 
structure of this Lepidoptera. The chapters to which the attention 
of microscopists is especially directed are entitled Comparative 
Anatomy of the Head, Comparative Anatomy of the Thorax, Deve- 
lopment of the Thorax of the Imago, Secondary Sexual Characters of 
the Imago, and to the essay on Geographical Distribution. The 
imagines of about four hundred species and the early stages of some 
are described and figured. 
The giving of New Specific Names.—We have some faint hope that 
the statement which has been published in the December number of 
‘Grevillea’ may have the effect of somewhat abating the nuisance 
which exists of multiplying specific names. A misconception seems 
to be current amongst some botanists that a MS. name in a private 
herbarium, or the description of a new species printed in a report 
which is circulated privately, or printed only for the use of a public 
department, is sufficient to establish priority for that species. In 
order to establish any claim for priority, the gentlemen whose 
names are subjoined hold that the species must be published, either 
by the circulation of specimens in published fasciculi, or by de- 
scription in some work accessible to the public. A privately, or 
exclusively, printed report which is not sold or published, is no 
security for priority of name. They say: “ We hold that unless a 
name or description is so published that it is accessible to botanists, 
its author cannot claim for it any other right than that of a manu- 
script name. It is presumed that if a description is published it is 
known, or might be known, to all botanists, but such presumption 
cannot be extended to names or descriptions privately printed ; for 
acquaintance with which no facilities are offered either by purchase 
or otherwise. We are assured that we are only expressing the 
general view of this subject which is recognized by all European 
naturalists. It would be manifest injustice to expect naturalists to 
respect names with which they cannot possibly become acquainted 
through the ordinary channels of scientific literature. The first 
published name, when accompanied by a sufficient diagnosis for the 
identification of a species, has recognized priority. Had not this 
plain doctrine been ignored or controverted, we should not have 
considered such an explanation necessary. 
“M. J. Berxetzy, J. M. Cromete, 
“RR. BrarraHwaitr, F. Kirron.” 
“M. C. Coors, 
Cell-division studied Microscopically.—This important subject has 
had a valuable paper devoted to it in a late number of the ‘ Comptes 
Rendus, * by M. H. Fol, which is well abstracted, although the 
language of the original is technical in style, in a late number of the 
‘Academy. He has not studied the subject in the case of the Verte- 
brata, but he has examined the nature of the process of cell-division 
* No. 13, vol. 1xxxiii. 
‘ 
