^.„ im;4 -I NEW JURASSIC CRiyOID—SPRlNlJJ'JR. 185 



The corxsequences to our literal ure of a strict application of the rule 

 of priority to either of these uoinenclatorial discoveries would be 

 somewhat ap])allini>:. Suppose we take-^ 



1. Eiicriiiits, Blunienhach, 177!); type, PJ. asferia, which is o^ood 

 unless preoccupied bv something earlier. This will require — • 



(/. A new generic name for Eiiciinns Uliiformis, which has been 

 used for nearly a century for the best known of all crinoids — one 

 which has been figured and described as such in countless works, and 

 specimens of which are found under that label in all the cabinets 

 and museums of the world. 



h. Applying the name, so long associated with the most familiar 

 fossils, to new. diil'erent, and unfamiliar use. 



c. Supplanting the name Isocrinus after it has become thoroughly 

 well established in literature, and is now currently employed by all 

 writers on the rec-ent crinoids. 



Or, if we take — 



2. Encrinvs, Andreae, 1770; type E. eoraJloides (==MiUerirrmi/s 

 echmatus) ; this, if good, upsets Blumenbach, but does not saye us 

 from results equally direful. For it likewise requires us — 



<(. To provide a new generic name for E. llliiformis. 



h. To apply the old name, with all its familiar association, to new 

 and different fossil forms, occurring in the same region, well known 

 and abundantly represented in literature under another name for 

 seventy-five years. 



c. To give a new name to Millericnnus. 



This brings us back again to — 



3. Encnntvm, Schulze, 17()0 ; no type-species stated, but the name was 

 probably intended for the fossil commonly known as E. liliiformis^ 

 Avhich he figured. Schulze's use of the term was not binominal, and 

 the case is a hard one; but he did use some other names binomially, 

 and it may be presumed that he intended to do so with this. To 

 recognize his name as valid would avpid all confusion, and leave the 

 literature as to all three of the names involved undisturbed. And in 

 a case like this, arising in the dawn of our science, before the rules 

 of nomenclature had become formulated, or Avere even practically 

 thought of, I think that expediency and the question of practical 

 disadvantages or benefits to the scientific public are to be consid- 

 ered where there is a possible alternative and some room for the 

 exercise of discretion. Here, on the one hand, is invited intolerable 

 confusion and the overthrowing of long familiar and classic names 

 to an extent that will bring the rules of nomenclature into disrepute ; 

 and this without serving any useful purpose and without benefit to 

 anybody, unless it be the satisfaction of some delver among musty 

 tomes, as I am, in making all the trouble he can. On the other hand, 

 there is the preservation of these names in the sense to which all 



