QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE 39 



nizes as the author, the "one who first publishes the name * * unless 

 it is clear, from the contents of the publication that someone else 

 is responsible for said name," we must consider PhiHpsson the 

 author. For by universal contemporary usage, and by university 

 usage everywhere before and since, the candidate publishes the 

 thesis, bearing all expense if the manner of publication is inde- 

 pendent, as in the present case. So universal has been this usage 

 in acad mic circles that we have no reason for questioning Phil- 

 ipsson's publication of the thesis. Furthermore, inasmuch as no 

 one else than the respondent and publisher is specifically cited 

 as the author of the thesis, we must consider the defendant and 

 publisher as the nomenclatorial author. In th s connection, Mr. 

 B. Woodward, of the British Museum, feels that "Art. 21 of the 

 Internat. Z. Code — or at least the latter part of it seems to refer 

 to such case where one man's description of a genus or species 

 is incorporated in another man's paper and consequently does 

 not apply to the case in point." But it seems to me that the 

 spirit of the Article is plain: that it applies in the present case, 

 and that its operation is not restricted to such cases as Mr. Wood- 

 ward cites, such as we find, for example, in the case of Lampsilis 

 fallaciosus H. M. Smith, 1899. 



(3.) In Mr. Simpson's papers, he contends that a local or 

 provincial university law or custom should suspend or supersede 

 the operation of the Code. As quoted before, Mr. Simpson refers 

 to a communication from Professor Moberg, of Lund, in which 

 the latter says that by a former law or custom of the University, 

 the professor was considered the author of all papers defended 

 under him. And then, he, as it seems to us, unwisely, added: 

 ''According to this, Retzius must be credited with the genus." This 

 too in the face of the fact that there is nothing in the thesis itself 

 to indicate that anyone other than Philipsson should be considered 

 the author. I am informed that such a law with regard to work 

 in chemistry has been in force among German universities up to 

 very recent times. The vital question is whether the existence 

 of such a custom satisfies the provision of the code section: " unless 

 it is clear from the contents of the publication that some other person 

 is responsible" for the work presented. To me, it seems that it 

 does not. Unless the credit is given so that a student in a foreign 

 country, unacquainted with local customs and regulations, can 

 understand who is to be held responsible, such provision is not 



