384 Zoological Society. 



The Committee of the British Association for the Reform and Re- 

 gulation of Zoological Nomenclature, amongst other excellent rules, 

 have decided that, "A name which is glaringly false shall be changed " 

 (Report, p. 113). I submit that this is the case when the name gi- 

 ganteus is proposed for a species less than half the size of others pre- 

 viously discovered, Now, although those remains of the truly gigantic 

 Pterodactyles had not been demonstrated to be such, yet they were 

 suspected so to be by Mr. Bowerbank when he proposed the name 

 giganteus ; and the name is in fact proposed, subject to the condition 

 of that demonstration, and under the evident belief that they be- 

 longed to the same species as the obvious Pterodactyle remains he 

 was describing. He says, " Under these circumstances I propose that 

 the species shall be designated ' giganteus\'" and the circumstances 

 referred to are the probable case that the bones, which from their large 

 size I had supposed to belong to a bird, should prove to belong to a 

 Pterodactyle. 



The Committee for the Reform of Zoological Nomenclature next 

 proceed to determine that, " Names not clearly defined may be 

 changed. Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the 

 name is given, it cannot be recognised by others, and the signification 

 of the name is consequently lost. Two things are necessary before a 

 zoological term can acquire any authority, viz. definition and publi- 

 cation. Definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential 

 characters, and in all cases we conceive this to be indispensable." 

 (Report, pp. 11 3, 114.) Now with regard to the Pterodactylus gigan- 

 teus, Mr. Bowerbank had unreservedly applied the term to the species 

 to which the long wing-bone first described by me might appertain, 

 under the circumstances of its being proved to belong to a Pterodac- 

 tyle ; inasmuch as he had figured two similar and equal-sized bones 

 in the * Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,' vol. iv. pi. 2, fig. 1 

 (Proceedings of the Society for June 9, 1847), as the "radius and ulna 

 oi Pterodactylus gigaiiteus." So far as a species can be intelligibly 

 defined by figures, that to which the term giganteus was in 1845 pro- 

 visionally, and in 1847 absolutely applied, seemed to be clearly enough 

 1)ointed out by the plate 2 in the work above cited. But, with the 

 arge bones appropriately designated by the term giganteus, some 

 parts of a smaller Pterodactyle, including the portions of jaws first 

 announcing the genus in the Chalk, had been associated under the 

 same name. Supposing those bones to have belonged to a young 

 individual of the Pterodactylus giganteus, no difficulty or confusion 

 would arise. After instituting, however, a rigid comparison of these 

 specimens, when drawing up my Descriptions for ]Mr. Dixon's work, 

 I was compelled to arrive at the conclusion that the parts figured by 

 Mr. Bowerbank in plate 2, figs. 1 & 2, of vol. ii. of the 'Quarterly Geo- 

 logical Journal,' and the parts figured in plate 2, figs, \a8cb, of vol. iv. 

 of the same Journal, both assigned by Mr. Bowerbank to the Ptero- 

 dactylus giganteus, belonged to two distinct species. The portions 

 of the scapula and coracoid of the Pterodactyle (j)l. 1 . fig. 2, torn, cit.) 

 indicated by their complete anchylosis that they had not been part 

 of a young individual of the species to which the large antibrachial 

 bones (pi. 2. fig. I a & b, torn, cit.) belonged ; although they might 



