Vol. xnr 



Co rrespondencc. 



187 



Lepus arcticus Ross. Lepus glacialis Leach. 



Dr. L. Stejneger. Dr. C. Hart Merriam. 



Dr. T. S. Palmer. Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. 



Lepus arcticus Leach, Ross. 

 Dr. Theo. Gill. 



Lepus arcticus " Leach " Ross. 

 Prof. II. A Pilsbrv. 

 Mr. S X. Rhoads. 

 Mr. Witmer Stone. 



If only one authority is to be quoted Dr. Gill and Prof. Pilsbrv would 

 adopt Lepus arcticus Leach, and Mr. Miller, if deciding the case first hand 

 (without regard to Baird, Sabine, etc.), would adopt Lepus arcticus Ross. 



Finally, I must apologize for using so much of your valuable space, 

 but feel that these questions should be brought into prominent notice, 

 for while they do not appeal to the field ornithologist, they must have 

 presented themselves to every systematist who has had occasion to discuss 

 points of nomenclature. 



Very truly yours, 



Witmer Stone. 



Acad. Nat. Sciences, P/iila., 

 March 3, 1896. 



[Mr. Stone, in a private letter accompanying the above, has kindly 

 suggested my following his communication with such remarks as may 

 seem to me pertinent. In doing so I wish to be understood as writing 

 for myself alone and not in behalf of or by the authority of the A. O. 

 Committee on Nomenclature, although what I sav in reference to the 

 points raised by Mr. Stone is, 1 believe, strictly in line with the decisions 

 of the Committee. 



First in regard to MS. names, or Mr. Stone's 'Smith and Jones' case. 

 As Mr. Stone has shown, there are two well-defined classes of manuscript 

 names. There are also cases which do not clearly come under either. 



1. Under class 1 we may place («) names borne on the label of a 

 museum specimen, or (7;) transmitted by means of a labelled specimen 

 from one naturalist to another. Out of courtesy, or for some other rea- 

 son no more obligatory, Jones, the publishing author, adopts Smith's 

 name and writes after it ' Smith MS.' In this case Jones is the authority 

 for the name, and Smith gets his 'credit' for his discovery, which will 

 appear to the end of time in every full citation of the bibliography of the 

 species. 



The justness of this is easily demonstrated. Jones is the responsible 

 party in the case. He is the arbiter as to whether Smith's supposed new- 

 species is really tenable. In case he finds it a ' good species ' he is at 



