June 12, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



875 



I cite this case as an exceedingly moderate 

 one. Probably no better reason could be as- 

 signed for changing a name. But what will be 

 the result? Some later author, with better 

 specimens at hand, will think he discovers the 

 relation of these forms with some genus or 

 family, and will therefore again change the 

 name so as to indicate this determination ; or 

 he may have no better reason than the 

 laudable wish to do honor to some other 

 eminent predecessor whom he regards as hav- 

 ing been neglected, and then we shall have 

 three names for the same thing, and so on in- 

 definitely. 



I will cite in the next place, the case of 

 Yatesia Morrisii Carr., described on page 166. 

 Here a short synonymy is given with the date 

 of each change placed conspicuously at the left, 

 and the first entry in this synonymy is : 



1867. Cycadeoidea Morrisii, Carruthers, 

 Geol. Mag., Vol. IV., p. 199. 



If the reader turns to the reference given in 

 the Geological Magazine he will find a paper by 

 Mr. Carruthers entitled ' On cycadeoidea YatesH, 

 a fossil cycadean stem from the Potton Sands, 

 Bedfordshire.' If I had not happened to have 

 worked up this synonymy I should of course 

 have accepted Mr. Seward's statement, but 

 having done so and arrived at the conclusion 

 that the true name must now be Yatesia Yatesii 

 Carr., I was, of course, struck by the discrep- 

 ancy. It is true that Mr. Carruthers in his subse- 

 quent larger paper in the Linnsean Transactions, 

 three years later, at the time that he founded 

 the genus Yatesia, had called this from Yatesia 

 Morrisii, evidently because he considered that 

 to give Yates's name to both genus and species 

 was 'objectionable.' But why, in giving the 

 synonj'my, should not the actual facts be stated, 

 so that the responsibility should rest where it 

 belongs? The entry Cycadeoidea Morrisii, 

 Geol. Mag., 1867, is simply a falsification of the 

 record. Although Mr. Seward's synonymy ap- 

 pears upon the face to be carefully prepared, 

 yet such facts as these show that it is not to be 

 trusted, and the reader is compelled in every 

 case to go back to the original and find out 

 whether the entry is correct or not. Clearly 

 such synonymy is far worse than none. 



The third and only other case that I shall 



cite is that of Benaettites Gibsonianus Carr., on 

 page 142. Here ten references are given in the 

 synonymy under the name, representing three 

 changes. Mantell's Clatharia Lyellii has, of 

 course, been set aside for proper reasons, and 

 the earliest entry by Carruthers is that of Ben- 

 nettites Gibsonianus in Trans. Linn. Soc, Vol. 

 XXVI., p. 700, 1870. The last entry in Mr. 

 Seward's synonymy is as follows: 



1894. Cycadeoidea Gibsoni, Ward, Biol. Soc. 

 Washington, Vol. IX., p. 80. 



From this the reader will, of course, suppose 

 that the last named author deliberately changed 

 the specific name from Gibsonianus to Gibsoni, 

 and will hold him responsible therefor. Very 

 few will have before them the little paper 

 quoted, but those who chance to have it will 

 find on the page cited that the first entry under 

 the synonymy is as follows; 



1867. Bennettites Gibsoni Carr. , Brit. Assoc. 

 Rep., 37th meeting, Pt. II., p. 80. 



This entry is correct, but is conveniently 

 omitted in Mr. Seward's synonymy. This 

 spelling of the specific name, therefore, has 

 three years priority over the other, and if there 

 were any other test of the propriety of a name 

 than that it is the first one given, the earlier 

 one in this case is the better, because the speci- 

 men was collected by Gibson, and the general 

 practice is to employ the genitive form for 

 names of persons who have some immediate 

 connection with the specimen, usually as col- 

 lector, and the adjective form for those whose 

 connection is remote, and especially where the 

 purpose is merely to honor one who may not be 

 related to the existing case at all. But two 

 reasons are no better than one. The reference 

 to Mr. Carruther's earliest name should, of 

 course, have been given under its proper date, 

 and the last entry should have been : 



1894. Cycadeoidea Gibsoni (Carr.) Ward. 

 This would have completed the record and 

 satisfied the ethics of the case. 



Of course, it may be objected that the name 

 Bennettites Gibsoyii Carr. was a nomen nudum, as 

 no description or figure accompanied it in the 

 note referred to, but the school of botanists to 

 which reference has been made have never 

 troubled themselves with any such refinements 

 in nomenclature as this. Mr. Carruthers pre- 



