TECHNIQUE 69 



important than anxiety over its place in artificial 

 taxonomy. Further, if the former investigation is 

 adequate, the latter detail should automatically follow. 

 Ideally, and it may be hoped usually, names are given 

 to forms as indications of their possession of certain 

 observed qualities distinguishing them from, or affili- 

 ating them to, other forms ; additional specimens can 

 be identified with those previously described only after 

 morphological study comparable with that made by the 

 authors who gave the names. At least, it is essential to 

 make sure of the precise significance attached to names 

 before rashly applying them to new material. 



Whenever possible, reference should be made to the 

 paper in which a name was originally proposed. Better 

 still, the specimen or specimens which caused the intro- 

 duction of the name should be examined, and compared 

 with the example whose identification is sought. Fail- 

 ing either of these important aids to accuracy, use may 

 be made of later monographs in which the genera and 

 species were redescribed by authorities. If the latter 

 guidance is necessary, due note should be made of the 

 fact, since cases are by no means lacking where specialists 

 have attached names to forms different from those to 

 which they rightly pertain. Especially in the publication 

 of lists of fossils for stratigraphical use, care should be 

 taken to give references to the descriptions and figures 

 used in making the identifications. The usual, and 

 proper, course of placing immediately after a specific 

 term the name of its original proposer, may prove mis- 

 leading unless his actual specimens or descriptions have 

 been studied. An example of this danger is afforded 

 by one of the best-known " characteristic fossils " of the 

 Lower Oolites. In 1829 Phillips proposed the name 

 Clypus scmisulcatus for an Echinoid found in the 

 Coralline Oolite of Malton ; the species was later made 



