12 PALEONTOLOGY OF THE UPPER MISSOURI. 



instead of Nummulites, Lamarck, or Niimmulina, D'Orbigiiy ; and as this is usually 

 considered the typical genus of the family, we have adopted the family name 

 Camerinidce, instead of Nantiloida>, or Nummulimdw. Our reason for restoring 

 Bruguiere's name, is, that it has priority over all the other regularly proposed 

 genera. It was also adopted by Cuvier, in 1798, as well as by Lamarck himself in 

 1799, 1 and of course previous to the publication of Nummulites and Nummulina. 

 This will be better understood by the following glance at the history of the genus: 



Previous to the introduction of the binomial nomenclature by Linna?us, these 

 fossils were known to the early writers by such specific phrases as " HeUcitcs niger 

 foliolis candidus," " Pierre lenticulaire," " Nummi lapidi," " Pierres numismaliq," &c. 

 In 1792, however, Bruguiere proposed for them the generic name Camerina (Encyc. 

 Moth. I, 396), giving at the same time a tolerably good description and history of the 

 genus, occupying three and a half of the quarto pages of the Encyclopedia, followed 

 by descriptions of the four species Camerina-lceviyata, C. striata, C. tuberculata, and 

 C. nummularia all of which have been recognized by the later writers as belonging 

 to the genus subsequently named Nummulites, by Lamarck, and still later, Nummu- 

 lina, by D'Orbigny. It was in his Syst. An., published in 1801, page 101, that 

 Lamarck first proposed the name Nummulites, adding little or nothing to what Bru- 

 guiere had published. In 1804 (An. Mus. V, 237), he ranged Bruguiere's species 

 under the new generic name Nummulites, with very nearly the same descriptions, and 

 references to figures and descriptions of previous authors given by Bruguiere, as lie 

 did again in 1826 (An. sans Vert., VIII, 627). In 1825, D'Orbigny, supposing 

 the genus had living representatives, gave a third name, Nummulina. At various 

 times other names were proposed for this group by other authors, but as none of 

 them antedate Bruguiere's, and they have all been dropped out of use, they have 

 no bearing on the question of priority, and need not be cited here. 



Now we cannot recognize any right or authority for the changes made by 

 Lamarck and D'Orbigny. Surely it cannot be urged that Bruguiere's erroneous 

 opinion in regard to the affinities of the Foraminifera is a reason for setting aside 

 his name, when Lamarck and D'Orbigny also classed them with the Molhisca. 

 But even if they had discovered the true affinities of the genus, or of the order to 

 which it belongs, this would not have given them the right to change a regularly 

 established generic name ; for if we admit such a rule, there would be no end to 

 changes, since natural history is constantly advancing, and improvements in the 

 classification of animals and plants are continually being made, and may be ex- 

 pected for a long time to come, as the affinities of the various groups are better 

 understood. Such a rule, for instance, would have given Dujardin the right to 

 change the names of all the genera of the entire order, when he in 1825 discovered 

 that the Foraminifera are not Cephalopoda, nor even Mollifies at all, but Protozoa. 



Nor can we admit D'Orbigny's right to change Lamarck's name Nummidites (had 

 it been well founded) to Nummulina, if he had found a living species of the genus : 

 since it has many fossil species, and it would be an absurdity to designate the 

 living species of a genus by one generic name, and the fossil species by another, 

 while the name most applicable to the fossil species has priority. Does any Con- 

 chologist, for instance, think Swainson's name Volutilithes should be changed 



1 See Prodr. p. 80, where his only cited example is C. Isevigata, Brug. 



