27 



of Pterodactylus giganteus." So far as a species can be intelligibly 

 defined by figures, that to which the ierm giganteus vi&s in 1845 pro- 

 visionally, and in 1 847 absolutely applied, seemed to be clearly enough 

 pointed out by the plate 2 in the work above cited. But, with the 

 large bones appropriately designated by the term giganteus, some 

 parts of a smaller Pterodactyle, including the portions of jaws first 

 announcing the genus in the Chalk, had been associated under the 

 same name. Supposing those bones to have belonged to a young 

 individual of the Pterodactylus giganteus, no difliculty or confusion 

 would arise. After uistituting, however, a rigid comparison of these 

 specimens, when drawing up my Descriptions for Mr. Dixon's work, 

 I was compelled to arrive at the conclusion that the parts figured by 

 Mr. Bowerbank in plate 2, figs. 1 & 2, of vol. ii. of the 'Quarterly Geo- 

 logical Journal,' and the parts figured in plate 2, figs. 1 a & 6, of vol. iv. 

 of the same Journal, both assigned by Mr. Bowerbank to the Ptero- 

 dactylus giganteus, belonged to two distinct species. The portions 

 of the scapula and coracoid of the Pterodactyle (pi. 1. fig. 2, torn, cit.) 

 indicated by their complete anchylosis that they had not been part 

 of a young individual of the species to which the large antibrachial 

 bones (pi. 2. fig. I a & b, torn, cit.) belonged ; although they might 

 well appertain to the species to which the jaws (pi. 1. fig. 1) belonged. 

 Two species of Pterodactyle were plainly indicated, as I have shown 

 in the above-cited work, by my lamented friend Mr. Dixon, ' On the 

 Tertiary 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 name giganteus had 

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

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

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

 lieved myself to be guided. 



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

 smaller Pterodactyle (pi. 1, torn. cit. 1845) 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 

 Pterodactyle, about to be described, to Avhich they 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- 

 clature' : — " The author who first 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 



giving the authority for the specific name in preference to all others, 

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

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

 its discovery." (Reports of the British Association, 1842, p. 120.) 



