112 
the ‘Occurrence of the Western Evening Gros- 
beak (Coccothraustes vespertinus montanus) in Las 
Vegas,’ and exhibited specimens of the birds. 
These birds had never been seen in Las Vegas, 
until about October 30th last, when they sud- 
denly appeared in great numbers. They had re- 
mained in the town until the present month; Mr. 
R. H. Powell remarked that he had seen them as 
recently as April 7th. Mr. Frank Springer stated 
that he had observed them in Santa Fé during 
February. Mr. E. L. Hewett exhibited a curi- 
ously twisted stone spear-head which had been 
found at Chapelle, N. M. It was evidently 
designed to twist in the wound, and was unique 
among the spear-heads collected in New Mexico. 
Mr. Hewett also called attention to a triskelion 
(three-leg) design which he had seen on a piece 
of ancient pottery from Arizona. He also 
showed some of the vessels from the burial 
mounds of the Pajarito district, N. M., in which 
the same design occurred, but modified, so that 
what appeared to be hands, with claw-like 
fingers, took the place of feet. 
eDPAENCe 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
PRIORITY OF PLACE AND THE METHOD OF 
TYPES. ' 
IN ScreNcE for April 12, 1901, Professor N. 
L. Britton has given an adequate explanation 
and justification for the rule of nomenclature 
which accepts precedence of page or position as 
a substitute for priority in time in determining 
which of two or more simultaneously published 
synonyms shall receive permanentrecognition. 
It is further held that the proposed use of the 
first species as the type of its genus is simply an 
extreme extension of the idea of priority of place, 
and all reference to the method of types asa 
means of securing stability in the application of 
generic names is omitted. 
In reality the priority or precedence analogy 
of the method of types is quite incidental to the 
main argument, and has been brought forward 
only because it seemed likely to influence favor- 
ably those who have been zealous in advocating 
‘page priority.’ Professor Britton very prop- 
erly maintains that there is an important logical 
distinction between the two propositions, but 
he does not bring out the facts that while pre- 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Vou. XIII. No. 331. 
4 
cedence priority is a small matter, affecting a 
few isolated instances, stability in the use of 
generic names is of universal taxonomic im- 
portance, and that the method of types* still 
remains the only suggested means of obtaining 
it. Page priority is not particularly just or 
reasonable, since an author’s last treatment of 
a genus or species is likely, on the whole, to be 
better than the first, and a rule to take the last 
of the synonyms appearing in the same book 
would be quite as definite and as readily appli- 
cable as one requiring the use of the first. But 
such a policy would not be in accord with the 
principle of priority, and it accordingly received 
but little consideration when the formulation 
of a definite rule was undertaken. With the 
method of types, also, the desideratum is a 
uniform rule, but thus far those who object to 
the use of the first species have not proposed to 
use the last species, or any other species in par- 
ticular, doubtless because they still fail to realize 
the taxonomic bearing of the fact that under an 
evolutionary view of nature a genus is no longer 
to be treated as a concept} or a definition, 
but as a group of species. 
The reasons for selecting the first species as 
the nomenclatorial type of a genus are quite as 
good, to say the least, as those for accepting 
the first name in a book, but they appear 
trivial when compared with those which require 
the taking of some species as the type, and that 
by a definite rule of uniform application. 
Accordingly, it is scarcely pertinent to bring 
merely nomenclatorial or historical objections 
against the proposition to use the first species 
as the type, until it can be shown that the 
general systematic and taxonomic requirements 
met by the method of types can be accommo- 
dated by the use of some other than the first 
species. 
Professor Britton’s further objection to the 
use of the first species, that ‘it would render 
useless for nomenclatorial purposes much orig- 
inal investigation through which genera have 
been definitely established,’ must be seriously 
discounted, to say the least, in view of the fact 
that the ‘ original investigation’ has been con- 
ducted, either without any uniform plan, or 
* SCIENCE, September 28, 1900, XI., 476. 
{ SCIENCE, October 14, 1898, VIII., 513. 
