844 



SCIENCE. 



LN. S. Vol. III. No. 75. 



case as this to the definition of what constitutes 

 a valid naming and description of genera or 

 species. Would Dr. Merriam have us estimate 

 the personal equation in the authorship of 

 names proposed by such a man as Rafinesque 

 because he fell so far below the scientific stand- 

 ards' of a Leidy ? Livingstone was ' only a 

 missionary' and Krider a 'gunmaker,' but 

 science is willing to say " 'A man's a man ' aud 

 priority is priority ' for a' that. ' ' ' 



The second objection made by Dr. Merriam 

 is not only as irrelevant as the first, but is based 

 on an incorrect statement. Koss knew more 

 about the specimen than Leach did, and the 

 latter was more indebted to Eoss for points as 

 to the animal than Ross was to Leach. They 

 described the same specimen, and, besides giv- 

 ing all the diagnostic characters described by 

 Leach, Ross adds two important ones and gives 

 the collector, locality and date of capture of the 

 specimen, which Leach omitted entirely. In 

 short, Ross' description is the better of the 

 two. 



As to objection number three, the inconsis- 

 tency of the numerical argument thus advanced 

 by a member of the A. O. LT. Committee on 

 Classification and Nomenclature* favoring the 

 old standard of ' time-honored ' custom, and 

 consensus of opinion in a question of ' equal 

 pertinency ' in specific names, strikes me as no 

 less lamentable than subversive of the best in- 

 terests of that department of American science 

 which aims at canonical permanency in the 

 rules of nomenclature. 



The fourth objection is based on a private 

 interpolation into the canonical code even more 

 obviously heterodox than objection number 

 three. I would ask Dr. Merriam where he 

 finds the ' rule that in cases of equal pertinency 

 the first reviser of the group has the privilege 

 of fixing the name ?' I do find in the A. O. U. 

 Code of Nomenclature, on which Dr. Merriam 

 has frequently had occasion to publicly pledge 

 his faith, under Canon XVII., relating to 'Pre- 

 ference between competitive specific names pub- 

 lished simultaneously in the same work * * *,' 

 a section 3 which reads, ' Of names of undoubt- 



* Dr. Merriam was recently appointed on this Com- 

 mittee in place of Mr. Henshaw. See Check List N. 

 A. Birds, 2d ed., 1895, p. vi., foot-note 1. 



edly equal pertinency and founded upon the 

 same condition of sex, age or season, that is to 

 be preferred which stands first in the book.' 

 To my mind this completely covers the matter 

 at issue and justifies my course in adopting 

 Lepus arcticus as the proper name of the Baflfin 

 Land Hare.* 



Regarding his criticism of my use of the Scan- 

 dinavian L. timidus as the basis of comparison 

 in a paper on American Polar Hares, I need 

 make no apology. Dr. J. A. Allen's mono- 

 graph of the American Hares was taken as the 

 last authoritative declaration of an American 

 mammalogist on the relations of these animals, 

 and, as he failed to recognize the distinctions 

 which I found to exist, it was reasonable that 

 they should be demonstrated by the plan of 

 comparison adopted in my paper. 



Instead of outlining the scope and aim of my 

 paper and stating that I had endeavored to 

 show the close affinity, but specific distinction 

 of the Baffin Land and Scandinavian Hares, 

 and their great diflTerences from the Hare of 

 Greenland, which previous authors have more 

 or less confounded with L. arcticus of Ross, 

 my critic chiefly devotes himself to a justifica- 

 tion of his own peculiar views on the subject of 

 names, methods and forms of expression. 



Dr. Merriam ventures no opinion as to the 

 status of what he spells ' L. greenlandicus ' in 

 his critique, and from his own admissions he 

 evidently knows less about the animal than 

 many of the authors whom he cites to support 

 his ' time honored ' but mistaken opinions. 



To cap the climax of unjust sarcasm, the 

 chief apostle of generic, specific and subspecific 

 subdivision in this country draws a parallel be- 

 tween my naming of the Labrador and New- 

 foundland subspecies, L. a. bangsii, to the sepa- 

 ration of ' weasels that turn white in winter 

 from specimens of the same species that remain 

 brown the year around !' Shall I answer such 

 logic? Not until I have more time and 

 Science more space for unscientific contro- 



* Since these remarks were written, I find that Dr. 

 J. A. Allen fully endorses the position I have taken, 

 in his answer to an inquiry made by Mr. Witmer 

 Stone, on this and kindred subjects, treated in the 

 ' Correspondence ' of the April issue of the AtiJc for 

 1896. 



