1 88 Correspondence. | Jg 



liberty to adopt Smith's name or not, as he chooses. If he finds Smith's 

 species is not a 'good species' it is his duty lo suppress it altogether, 

 thus doing Smith the kindness of concealing his mistake, and benefiting 

 science by suppressing a synonym. 



i. Under class 2 we may place MS. names, transmitted from one 

 naturalist to another, accompanied with a diagnosis. Jones, the publish- 

 ing author, receives from Smith not only a labelled specimen, but a 

 diagnosis of the new species it is supposed to represent. Jones publishes 

 the name and the diagnosis as inedited matter, credited to Smith, with 

 such additional comment as he sees fit, endorsing or discrediting the 

 species as his judgment may dictate. In this case Smith is the author 

 and [ones merely the vehicle of publication, and the citation will be 

 "Smith, in [ones, etc." (= title of the publication). Or, as sometimes 1 

 happens, instead of transmitting specimens, Smith may send merely the 

 name and diagnosis for incorporation in Jones's monograph ; in which 

 case, or in either case, Jones's responsibility for Smith's species extends 

 only so far as relates to his good judgment in accepting Smith's matter 

 for publication. 



On this supposition, Jones publishes Smith's diagnosis as well as his 

 name, and both in such a way as to indicate Smith's authorship Should 

 Jones fail to do this, and their is nothing to show Smith's claim, we can 

 recognize only the ostensible author; the equity of the case is purely a 

 personal matter between Smith and Jones. 



In certain cases one may have reason to suppose that the author of t lie 

 MS. name furnished something more than a MS. name attached to a 

 specimen, — in fact in rare instances many know this to be the case: but 

 it would be fatal to stability in the matter of authorities for names if we 

 allowed such knowledge or conviction to supercede what the record shows 

 on its face, since this alone is the evidence open equally to every one. 



All cases of MS. names should be placed under one or the other of the 

 two classes already defined, but the decision may be less easy in some 

 cases than in others. An instance in point is the case of " Fringilla chlo- 

 rura Towns., in And. Orn. Biog.." etc., cited above by Mr. Stone. It is 

 evident that all Audubon knew of the bird was derived from the account 

 furnished him in a letter bv Mr. Townsend ; the whole account, except 

 the name, is given as a quotation from Townsend. Townsend may have 

 given it the name also, but of this there is no proof. The name as it 

 stands is ostensibly Audubon's. Yet all subsequent writers have attrib- 

 uted it to Townsend, and apparently the A. (). U. Committee followed 

 custom without subjecting the case to special scrutiny. Now that my 

 attention is specially drawn to it, I see no way of escaping the decision 

 that, in strict accordance with the rule applied in other cases in the 

 revised edition of the Check-List, the name is Audubon's, and the citation 

 should be Fringilla chlorura Audubon. 



In the case of " Otocoris alpcstris pallida Townsend," it seems unavoid- 

 able to accept Mr. Stone's correction, as Dr. Dwight's paper was published 



