874 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 76. 



Wealden, aud this is almost certainly the case 

 with the specimen referred to Araucarites 

 (Conites elegans Carr. and Kaidacarpum minus 

 Carr.). The difference, therefore, in this respect 

 between the Potomac formation and the Weal- 

 den may not be as great as was supposed. 



My principal object in visiting the Wealdeu 

 was to see what could be learned of its relation- 

 ship with the Lower Cretaceous of the United 

 States, and in the paper already twice referred 

 to I have pointed out all such relationships, 

 both stratigraphical and paleontological, that I 

 was able to detect on that brief visit. The gen- 

 eral result seems to be that there are marked 

 similarities in both these respects, and that the 

 Wealdeu formation is like the Potomac, not 

 only in its flora, but also in the manner in 

 which it was laid down. The two seem to 

 form a special epoch in the history of geology, 

 and it may well be that the events which their 

 strata record were in large part taking place at 

 the same time on both sides of the Atlantic. 



In reviewing such an important and able 

 work as the one before us, it is greatly to be 

 regretted that there should be anything in it 

 to which a hearty assent can not be given, and 

 it is fortunate that the only part of the book 

 from which anyone could dissent is that which 

 relates to so unimportant a matter as nomencla- 

 ture, which is regarded by many as of no con- 

 sequence at all in comparison with the scien- 

 tific problems that are demanding solution. 

 And yet we can no more dispense with a nomen- 

 clature than we can dispense with language. 

 It is in a certain sense the language of science, 

 and as such it should possess all the precision 

 that science requires in all departments. Those 

 who regard it as of no value should not forget 

 that the great Darwin, whom no one can accuse 

 of being a systematist in any sense of the word, 

 considered the subject of nomenclature of such 

 paramount importance that he actually be- 

 queathed a sum of money to be devoted thereto ; 

 and all scientific workers, I think, no matter 

 what branch of science they pursue, feel the 

 same need that the language of science and the 

 nomenclature of its innumerable facts, especially 

 in the organic world, be reduced to the most 

 perfect form for their use. 



In what I shall say relative to the nomencla- 



ture employed in this book, I do not wish to be 

 understood as specially criticising its author, 

 but rather as characterizing, in the most gen- 

 eral way, what I regard as a defective system. 

 This peculiar nomenclature is, so far as I am 

 aware, confined to the botanists and paleo- 

 botanists of Great Britain and of one or two 

 botanical centers in the United States. In all 

 other branches of science and among botanists 

 of all other parts of the world, no such system is 

 employed, aud it is not tolerated except by this 

 restricted class. It is based on the assumption 

 that the author of a name has no more title to 

 that name than anyone else, and that any sub- 

 sequent author is at liberty to change any name 

 that he regards as 'objectionable.' Of course 

 there is no agreement whatever as to what 

 makes a name objectionable, and therefore in 

 practise it amounts to the right of any author 

 to change any name at will. It is this principle, 

 or, rather want of principle, that has thrown 

 the nomenclature of botany into such inextrica- 

 ble confusion and renders it next to impossible 

 for any writer who has not all the botanical 

 literature of the world before him to decide 

 what is the true name of any genus or species. 

 I will cite only three cases in the present work 

 as fairly illustrative of this point. 



On page 173, Mr. Seward creates a new genus 

 Withamia, as a ' substitute ' for Saporta's genus 

 Cycadorachis, given by the latter to forms found 

 in the lower Kimmeridgian, which he believed 

 to represent the rachis of a cycad frond. In 

 making this change Mr. Seward remarks : 

 "Although it is held by some a wrong course 

 to adopt, I propose to substitute, in the case of 

 Cycadorachis armata Sap., and the almost iden- 

 tical fossils from the English Wealdeu, a new 

 generic name in place of that instituted by 

 Saporta. To retain Saporta's genus, with the 

 recently discovered specimens before us, would 

 be practically equivalent to assigning the pilant 

 to a position which appears to be entirely at 

 variance with the facts. I propose, therefore, to 

 institute the new genus Withamia for these spiny 

 axes with leaf-like appendages, and in doing so 

 to place on record some slight recognition of 

 the immensely important service which Witham 

 of Lartingdon rendered to paleobotanical set- 



