42 Mr. R. Kiikpatrick on 



The precise style or mode of appointment of the desired 

 authority does not greatly matter if only zoologists will agree 

 to accept it. But that it should consist of experts will doubt- 

 less be conceded. The ruling may be arbitrary, but it must 

 none the less be made with knowledge of all the circum- 

 stances of the case and of the results that will follow from it. 

 It must be clearly understood that the decision is to be made, 

 not because it is in accordance with the rules, but because it 

 is to produce practical convenience. 



There is nothing particularly novel in these proposals. A 

 similar one was made in 'Natural Science' for April and 

 May 1896 (pp. 218-220,302), but though "regarded with 

 favour in various influential quarters,'' nothing lias yet been 

 done to give it effect. And even the recent discussion at the 

 British Association, though unanimous in its resolutions, has 

 so far been barren in its results. The next steps appear to be, 

 tirst to find out whether a sufficient number of leading zoolo- 

 gists are in favour of these proposals, the next to approach 

 whichever of the two bodies mentioned may be agreed upon, 

 with a request that it will undertake this added responsibility. 

 This would be better done b}-- some society or some group of 

 naturalists than by a single worker known only to a few. 

 Perhaps the British Association would appoint a small 

 committee to collect opinions and formulate the request. 



P.S. — To prevent misconception, it may be added that this 

 paper was written before the receipt of Mr. Springer's widely 

 distributed appeal. He, however, deals only with a particular 

 question, capable, as I have here shown, of various answers. 

 My object is to press for a solution of the general question. 



V. — Notes on Merlia normani, Kirhp. 

 By R. KiRKPATEICK. 



Prof. Weltner, to whom I had sent, at his request, some 

 specimens of Merlia normani which I had dredged up off 

 Porto Santo Island, has recently published a notice* entitled 

 " 1st Merlia normani Kirkp. ein Schwanim ? " 



The pressure of other work prevents me from giving here 

 a full description of Merlia adequately illustrated ; nor am I 

 yet able to answer the question " What is Merlia?'^ — this 

 inability partly being due, I think I may fairly say, to the 



* Archiv fiir Naturg. 75 Jahrg. 1 Bd., 1 Heft, 1909, p. 139. 



