172 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIV. No. 1127 



of the Pliocene. Following is a description of 

 the fossils: 



Here follow twenty-two pages, pages from 

 205 to 226, describing the fossils of the Quil- 

 layute formation. I will add that I described 

 no fossils whatever from the glacial deposits, 

 or Quaternary deposits of the Olympic Penin- 

 sula. Furthermore in describing each fossil I 

 gave a notation after it telling where it had 

 been found; for example, take Yoldia cooperi, 

 fossil number 34, described on page 206 of the 

 article. The notation following the description 

 is as follows : 



Living: Half Moon Bay, California (Arnold); 

 San Diego to Santa Cruz (Cooper). 



Pleistocene : Ventura, San Diego, Cal. (Arnold) ; 

 San Pedro (Arnold; Cooper). 



Pliocene: San Fernando (Cooper); Portata Val- 

 ley, California (Arnold). 



^Pliocene: Mouth of Quinaielt River, Granville, 

 Wash. (Arnold), Quillayute, Wash. (Eeagan). 



Again take number 35, Cardium meekianum 

 Gabb, on the same page. The notation is : 



This is quite a numerous species of the Pliocene at 



Quillayute, Wash. 

 Pliocene: Humboldt county, California (Gabb); 



Quillayute, Wash. (Eeagan). 



In correlation, the sandstone and bluish 

 shale of the Quillayute formation, which I 

 definitely described in my article as composing 

 the formation, is typical Empire sandstone and 

 shale. Albert B. Reagan 



Principal, XJ. S. Indian School, 

 Ignacio, Colorado 



nomenclatorial facts 

 Two cases have been recently cited in the 

 present journal by Mr. A. N". Caudell as show- 

 ing nomenclatorial inconsistency in the atti- 

 tude of the present writer. That this is true, 

 or that, as Mr. Caudell infers, unanimity 

 among systematists is hopeless, we are entirely 

 unprepared to admit. 



In the first case we have claimed that Pede- 

 ticum of McNeill is preoccupied by Pedeticus 

 of Laporte. 1 As the International Code has as 

 yet not acted on this matter, we are led to this 

 decision by Canon 20, page lviii, 1898, of the 

 iEnt. News, XXVII., p. 17 (1916). 



A. O. U. Code. Mr. Caudell refers to Article 

 36 of the International Code, but indirectly 

 quotes only a recommendation there found. 

 Such recommendations have been admitted, by 

 the secretary of the International Commission, 

 to have no force of law. Furthermore, Opinion 

 25 of the International Commission, also cited 

 by Mr. Caudell, does not bear on the subject, 

 as in the present case the matter involved is 

 simply a case of different gender termination, 

 while in the case of Damesella and Damesiella 

 the Commission, in Opinion 25, is obliged to 

 fall back on Section K of Recommendation of 

 Article 8, " a name composed of arbitrary com- 

 binations of letters." The results obtained 

 were the International Code to disagree with 

 the A. O. U. Code would create such diffi- 

 culties that we feel confident that the Interna- 

 tional Code will be found to agree with that 

 of the A. 0. U., when this matter is finally 

 acted upon. As an instance, in the case of 

 Aplodontia, twenty-four emendations have al- 

 ready been found and cited by Palmer, 2 the 

 confusion possible, were each of these eligible 

 for distinct generic rank, is evident. 



In regard to Libell[ula] americanus, Drury 

 nowhere in his work suggests a different 

 generic position for this name. The use of 

 Libellula may constitute a lapsus calami, but 

 it would seem an assumption that Gryllus is 

 the intended genus, where Locusta or Acry- 

 dium might have been intended. We regret 

 that we feel obliged to criticize the quoted 

 opinion of Dr. Stiles and concurrence in the 

 same of Dr. Stejneger. Drury 's index, in 

 which Libell[ula~\ americanus is found is not 

 known to be of a later date than his first vol- 

 ume; it is Westwood, in his edition of Drury, 

 who first suggests Gryllus to replace Libellula 

 for this species, and the " obvious " lapsus 

 calami is not as obvious or as easily disposed of 

 when the original edition of Drury is con- 

 sidered. It appears probable that Dr. Stiles's 

 unofficial opinion is based rather upon second- 

 hand information than upon examination of 

 the original edition of Drury. 



We are strongly in favor of both of these 

 cases being brought before the Commission 



a"N. A. Fauna," XXIII., p. 25 (1904). 



