268 EDITORIAL 



something further to say upon the subject at an early date, but 

 merely to say a word on the special issue raised by the articles 

 of Messrs. Cumings and Siebenthal in this number, which appear 

 together by mutual concurrence. These articles bring up the 

 question how far the law of priority, rigorously interpreted, 

 shall determine all subsequent usage, and how far other consid- 

 erations may properly weigh against it. It appears that in this 

 case the term "Bedford" was used by Owen as early as 1862 in 

 describing the well-known Indiana formation ; but that it was 

 not then formally proposed as the scientific name of the forma- 

 tion. In 1870 Dr. Newberry proposed the name "Bedford shale" 

 for an entirely different formation, found at Bedford, Ohio. Since 

 then the term "Bedford stone" has become familiar throughout 

 the country as the commercial designation of the rock so exten- 

 sively shipped from the Indiana town, and this use will quite 

 certainly continue in spite of any technical usage which geolo- 

 gists may propose. Two practical questions therefore arise: 



1. Does the familiar use of a term in an official report as the 

 designation of a given formation in any sense or to any degree 

 preoccupy the term so that it may not be used advisedly as 

 the formal name of any other formation, particularly a formation 

 in the same geological province ? Specifically, did the use of the 

 term " Bedford rock " by Owen in any degree preoccupy the 

 term "Bedford" so that it was improperly selected as the formal 

 name of a formation in Ohio ? 



2. Does the growth of such a name into very common 

 usage, together with the certainty that this common usage must 

 prevail in spite of any technical practice that may be adopted 

 by geologists, constitute a sufficient reason for not applying the 

 term technically to any other formation in the same province ? 



There is also the more general question, whether our science 

 should be burdened for all time to come by infelicities in the 

 choice of a name made by a busy worker who may have been 

 able to give but a passing thought to the selection of a name, and 

 who may have been unaware at the time of the infelicities likely 

 to arise out of it. In short, shall the rule of priority, rigidly 



