608 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1008 



names, in sueli a case, should be adopted? 

 Mr. T. has pirated the names, but they are in 

 print and have priority. My opinion is that 

 they should be rejected as stolen goods. 



This is not an imaginary instance, and 

 such cases have happened more than once. 

 Mr. T., in such a case, may be thoughtless, 

 rather than criminal, but the resulting con- 

 fusion in nomenclature is the same. 



It seems to me that the case of Fr. Weber, 

 1795, versus Fabricius, 1798, concerning the 

 genera of Crustacea, is a case of just about 

 this sort, yet the committee has decided in 

 favor of the obscure and rare pamphlet of 

 Weber, as against the important work of 

 Fabricius, from whom the generic names were 

 apparently stolen,, or improperly borrowed, 

 for Fabricius did not adopt or recognize many 

 of the genera in the forms prematurely pub- 

 lished. To adopt the pirated generic names is 

 to throw crustacean nomenclature into much 

 confusion. 



If the unauthorized publishing of scientific 

 names is to be upheld as valid, then a reporter 

 for any newspaper or magazine who chooses 

 to report technical papers and note down the 

 names used in a meeting of a learned society 

 may have to be quoted as the author of the 

 names, whether rightly or wrongly spelled. I 

 could give eases of this kind, but it is best to 

 forget them, no doubt, for somebody might 

 revive them, as valid publications. 



To illustrate the first and third propositions 

 we may take up an article by Professor J. 

 Playfair McMurrich, " The Actinaria of Pas- 

 samaquoddy Bay, with a Discussion of Their 

 Synonomy." ^ 



In this article the author tries to restore 

 certain names given by Linne to some obscure 

 Norwegian species, in place of those almost 

 universally adopted by European and Amer- 

 ican writers for some of the best known spe- 

 cies common to both coasts. 



He brings forward no evidence that has not 

 been well known to nearly all writers on the 

 subject. He himself admits that the descrip- 

 tions given by Linne are insuflicient to iden- 

 tify any species, and he therefore depends on 



2 Trans. Royal Soc. Canada, Vol. IV., 1911, p. 59. 



the references made by Linne later (in edi- 

 tion XII.) to various earlier writers, as was 

 his habit in many groups. Every one familiar 

 with his work must recognize that he often 

 made such references very loosely, mainly to 

 give some general idea of the looks of a 

 thing, without intending to imply absolute 

 identity. McMurrich picks out certain 

 figures, among several referred to by Linne, 

 that he thinks can perhaps represent the spe- 

 cies intended, but he rejects various others, 

 and thus guesses at what Linne had in mind, 

 even when the figures disagree with the 

 descriptions. 



In fact, Lirme was profoundly ignorant in 

 respect to most marine Invertebrates, except 

 shells. His descriptions of Actinians are no 

 better than an intelligent boy twelve years 

 old could write, after five minutes of watch- 

 ing these creatures, and his references to 

 figures are as careless as his descriptions. 

 Therefore his actinian species should be 

 dropped as indeterminable, even if there were 

 no other good reasons. The leading European 

 authorities, familiar with the actinians of the 

 same region, have never been able to agree as 

 to his species, and they surely ought to have 

 an advantage over an American in such 

 matters. 



But this is not the only reason why most 

 vTi'iters, before McMurrich, have wisely re- 

 jected the names. The most convincing rea- 

 son has been their obscenity. No writer has 

 been more familiar with north European 

 actinians than P. H. Gosse. In his " Actino- 

 logia Brit.," 1860, he quotes both A. senilis 

 and A. judaica of Linne under A. dianthus; 

 and also A. senilis and A. felinia under Tealia 

 crassicornis. But he dismisses these names as 

 entirely " out of the question," on account of 

 their objectionable significance. 



Linne gave obscene names to some genera 

 and to many species. These, in many cases, 

 were merely the dirty names given to many 

 marine creatures by the local fishermen and 

 put into a Latin form by Linne or his pre- 

 decessors. Such obscene names (often the 

 same) are still in use, even by American fisher- 

 men, as I know from long experience. 



