114 Dr. G. C. Wallich on the Value of 



the question, inasmuch as the Bengal form has not been spe- 

 cially described, in order to render evident the true value at- 

 tached to all unpublished researches, I need only quote the sub- 

 joined extract from the ' Report of the Committee of the British 

 Association for 1843, appointed to consider the rules by which 

 the nomenclature of zoology may be established on a uniform 

 and permanent basis : ' — 



" Unless a species or group is intelligibly defined when the name is given, 

 it cannot be recognized 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 publication. Definition properly 

 implies a distinct exposition of essential characters ; and in all cases we 

 conceive this to be indispensable, although some authors maintain that a 

 mere enumeration of the component species, or even of a single type, is 

 sufficient to authenticate a genus. To constitute publication, nothing 

 short of the insertion of the above particulars in a printed book can be 

 held sufficient." * * * " Nor can any unpublished descriptions, however 

 exact, claim any right of priority till published, and then only from the 

 date of their publication. The same rule applies to cases where groups or 

 species are published, but not defined. Therefore (§ 12) a name which has 

 never been clearly defined in some published work should be changed for the 

 earliest name by which the object shall have been so defined." 



Here, then, it will be seen that, independently of the very 

 secondary question as to priority in discovery of the essential 

 characters which I believe indicate the typical Amoeba, the really 

 important point for determination (namely, the validity or other- 

 wise of the definition assigned by the original founder of the 

 species^, princeps, as embracing A. villosa) is not left in doubt 

 for a moment. And hence, although the characters so assigned 

 to A. princeps must be held as insufficient for the definition of 

 A. villosa, those assigned by me to the latter form are such as 

 to embrace every character previously assigned to A. princeps. 

 Under these circumstances, I apprehend it is quite unnecessary 

 for me, in view of the rule just quoted, further to discuss the 

 grounds upon which I am reluctantly compelled to object to the 

 course followed by Mr. Carter in making a new definition for 

 A. princeps so as to embody the characters of the all-important 

 organ to which attention was directed by me in my late papers. 

 The statement at page 43 of Mr. Carter's paper in the 'Annals* 

 for July, namely, that " the villous appendage which marks the 

 posterior end of ^. pr-inceps has lately been brought to notice by 

 Dr. Wallich in the species for which he has proposed the desig- 

 nation of A. villosa," in the absence of any intimation of the 

 fact that both the discovery and the name are mine, coupled 

 with the remark which immediately follows as to having figured 

 the villous appendage in his " Indian Journal" * so far back as 



* Of course I am writing under the impression that by the term " Indian 

 Journal " is meant a private and unpublished journal. 



