I o J- Correspondence. ( "^ 



(Jones) distinctly disclaimed credit for the species by quoting 'Smith' 

 along with the scientific name at the head of the description. 



The mere question of 'credit' is of but little importance to my mind, 

 ^or more real 'credit ' belongs to the man who prepares a good monograph 

 of a group whether he hands his name down to posterity as a sort of 

 caudal appendage to a lot of new species or not. A form warranting 

 description should be described bv all means, but this is not the end of 

 zoological science, as some seekers after new species seem to think. 



If both sides were consistent in the above argument we might decide in 

 favor of one or the other, but they are not. 



So far as ray experience goes representatives of both sides recognize two 

 classes of MS. names, (i) In which Smith prepares the entire diagnosis 

 as well as proposes the name and Jones prints the whole bodily in his 

 paper. (2) Where Smith has merely attached his new name to a speci- 

 men and called attention to some of its characters, leaving yones to prepare 

 the diagnosis. 



In case (2) the advocates of the publisher as the authority to. be cited 

 quote Jones, but in case (1) I find most of them would quote Smith. 



Now for mv part I fail to see how we can in practice draw a line between 

 these two classes of MS. names, and how we are to tell which author had 

 the most to do with framing a description. 



Moreover, inclined though lam to the citing of the publisher of t lie 

 name, I do not think that the MS. author can be wholly ignored where all 

 the work is his and where the publisher has merely acted as editor for 

 him. and distinctly disowns the species as his own. Such action would 

 cause the greatest overthrow of authorities in invertebrate zoology where 

 MS. names are much more frequent. 



The clearest way out of the difficulty seems to me to be the quotation of 

 both authors in all cases thus: ''Smith" Jones, 1 which indicates exactly 

 the status of the authority and is very little more trouble to write. This 

 practice, too, will be much more likelv to be generally adopted than the 

 citation of either name separately, especially in view of the great diversity 

 of opinion which now exists among zoologists in general. 



The action of the A. (). U. Committee in regard to this question is 

 interesting and further illustrates the diversity of opinion, at the same time 

 showing how unstable the authorities quoted in our list are likely to be. 

 In the first edition of the Check-List there are some twenty instances 

 of 'MS.' names: in tour of these the Committee decided to adopt as 

 authority the name of the author who published the description, while 

 in all the rest they ruled in favor of the author of the MS. name. The 

 latter seemed to be their general rule while the first four cases were 

 regarded as pure nontina nuda before the descriptions appeared. In some 



1 I do not claim any originality in suggesting this form of citation, as I am 

 well aware that it has been often used. I merely advocate this form as prefer- 

 able to either name separately or to such a form as, Smith MS. Jones. 



