190 AMERICAN JOURNAL 



Contributions to Geology." Mr. Lea proves to us, that his 

 work was read before the Academy of Natural Sciences, 

 August 27th, 1833, and was printed and distributed in the 

 latter part of November, or beginning of December, 1833 — 

 tbe exact date cannot be ascertained. 



Mr. Conrad was in Alabama at the time that this work, as 

 well as his own " Fossil Shells of the Tertiar}^ Formation," 

 was published, and desires us to correct the unintentional 

 error he has made regarding the date of publication of Mr. 

 Lea's book. 



We offer the following dates, copied from the Minute Book 

 of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia : 



Aug. 27th, 1833, Mr. Lea read his paper on " Tertiary Forma- 

 tion of Alabama" before the Academy of Natural Sciences, 

 describing 202 species. 



Sept. 3d, 1833, Mr. Conrad's work, "Fossil Shells of the Ter- 

 tiary Formation," presented to the Library. (Presumed 

 to be to No. 3, inclusive. 



Nov. 26th, 1833, Dr. Morton presented to the Library the 4th 

 No. of Mr. Conrad's " Tertiary Fossils." 



Dec. 10th, 1833, Lea's "Contributions to Geology," (including 

 his paper on Tertiary Fossils of Alabama,) presented by 

 the author. 



Mr. Conrad probably has priority in printed publication. 

 But Mr. Lea claims priority upon the "reading" of his paper 

 to the Academy of Natural Sciences, Aug. 27th, 1833. While 

 we, in common with most conchologists, recognize in the date 

 of publication of printed paper the only correct rule for de- 

 termining questions of priority, yet it is still, we believe, an 

 unsettled point, whether this comparatively recent rule ought 

 to be extended back in its application to a time when all the 

 principal publishing Societies united in determining priority 

 by date of reading. It is a question, how much the interests 

 of science are benefited by innovation in such cases. 



We do not know that any authoritative decision has been 

 made on a like question since the general adoption of the 

 llules of the British Association, and are not prepared to give 

 our own opinion at present. We, therefore, merely state the 

 facts as above, and leave our readers to form their own con- 

 clusions. 



Mr. Conrad, we should add, repudiates, and ahvays has 

 done so, the reading of papers, as establishing priority ; while 

 Mr. Lea has always adhered to the date of reading, which is 

 in accordance with the rules of the French Academy, th*e 

 Eoyal Society of London, the American Philosophical So- 

 ciety, &G. 



