Zoological Society. 385 



well appertain to the species to which the jaws hclonged. Two spe- 

 cies of Pterodactyle were plainly indicated, ns I have shown in the 

 above-cited work, hy my lamented friend Mr. Dixon, ' On the Ter- 

 tiary and Cretaceous Deposits of Sussex,' 4to, p. 402. The same 

 name could not be retained for both, and it was in obedience to this 

 necessity, and not with any. idea of detracting an iota from the merit 

 of Mr. Bowerbank's original announcement of the existence of a Pte- 

 rodactyle in the chalk, that I proposed the name of conirostris for 

 the smaller species, then for the first time distinctly defined and di- 

 stinguished from the larger remains to which the nmne giganteushsidi 

 also been given by Mr. Bowerbank. I proposed the name, more- 

 over, provisionally and with submission to the ' Committee for the 

 Reform of Zoological Nomenclature,' according to whose rules I be- 

 lieved myself to be guided. 



My conclusions as to the specific distinction of the remains of the 

 smaller Pterodactyle (pi. 1, torn. cit. 184.5) from those figured in 

 plate 2. torn. cit. 1848, have received full confirmation by the va- 

 luable discovery of the portion of the cranium of the truly gigantic 

 I'terodactyle, about to be described, to which tliey belonged ; and it 

 is certainly to be wished that, in determining to assign to Mrs. Smith's 

 specimens the name of ' giganteus,' Mr. Bowerbank should have con- 

 formed to the following equitable rule of the ' Committee of Nomen- 

 dature': — "The author viho Jirst describes and names a species, 

 which forms the groundwork of later generalizations, possesses a 

 higher claim to have his name recorded than he who afterwards de- 

 fines a genus which is found to embrace that species By 



p'ving the authority for the specific name in preference to all others, 

 1 he inquirer is referred directly to the original description, habitat, 

 kc. of the species, and is at the same time reminded of the date of 

 its discovery." (Reports of the British x\ssociation, 1842, p. 120.) 



Now the species which I originally described under the name of 

 Cimoliornis diomedeus comes precisely under this category : it has 

 formed the groundwork of later generalizations, M'hich have led to its 

 being embraced by another genus. In this case the Committee of 

 Nomenclature, whilst determining that the specific name should be 

 retained, recommend that the describer should " append to the ori- 

 ginal authority for the species, when not applying to the genus also, 

 some distinctive mark, such as {sp.), implying an exclusive reference 

 to the specific name." In conformity with the above recommenda- 

 tion, the gigantic species of Pterodactyle, of which parts have been 

 described by Mr. Bowerbank, and parts previously by myself, would 

 be entered into the Zoological Catalogues as follows : — 



Pterodactylus diomedeus, Owen (sp.), Proceedings of the Zoolo- 

 gical Society, January 1851. 



Cimoliornis diomedcexis. Ibid., British Fossil Mammals and Birds, 

 p. 54.5, cuts 230, 231 (1 843-1 84G). 



Osteornis diomedceus, Gervais, These sur les Oiseaux Fossiles, 8vo, 

 p. 38 (1844). 



Pterodactylus gigantevs, Bowerbank, Quarterly Journal of the 

 (Jeological Society, vol. iv. p. 10. pi. 2. figs. 1 & 4* (1848). 



Ann. &^ Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Vol.x. 25 



