Decembeb 14, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



773 



conclusion that the Ceiha may very probably 

 be considered as a native of the new world. 

 C. Stuart Gager, 



Secretary. 



THE ELISHA MITCHELL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY OF 

 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, 



The 168th meeting of the society was held 

 in the main lecture hall of the new chemical 

 laboratory on Tuesday evening, November 20, 

 at 7:30 p.m., with the following program: 



Pbofessob a. S. Wheeleb : ' Denatured 

 Alcohol.' 



Peofessoe J. E. Mills: 'The Mutual Absorp- 

 tion of Attraction by the Attracting Particles.' 

 A. S. Wheeler, 

 Recording Secretary. 



the ST. LOUIS CHEMICAL SOCIETY. 



At the meeting of the St. Louis Chemical 

 Society on November 12, Dr. H. M. Whelpley 

 presented a paper, entitled ' The United States 

 Pharmacopceia and National Formulary, the 

 Standard Authority of the Food and Drugs 

 Act of June 30, 1906.' The paper was due to 

 the interest in the pharmacopoeia developed 

 by the new law. The speaker gave a brief 

 history of pharmacopoeias in general and of 

 the United States Pharmacopoeia in particular, 

 dwelling especially on the methods pursued 

 by the Pharmacopoeial Convention, in the de- 

 cennial revisions of the national standard. 



C. J. BORGMEYER, 



Corresponding Secretary. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



the ^elimination' and 'first species' METH- 

 ODS OF FIXING THE TYPES OF GENERA. 



In a recent number of Science Mr. Witmer 

 Stone has very ably presented the evidence in 

 favor of the adoption of the 'first species' 

 method of fixing types of composite genera.* 

 As a strenuous advocate for many years of the 

 ' elimination ' method, I beg space for a few 

 comments on Mr. Stone's paper. 



* " The Relative Merits of the * Elimination ' and 

 * First Species ' Method in Fixing the Types of 

 Genera — with Special Reference to Ornithology," 

 Science, N. S., Vol. XXIV., No. 618, pp. 560-565, 

 November 2, 1906. 



It must be admitted that he has made a 

 pretty favorable showing for the ' first species ' 

 principle. I have always conceded that this 

 would be the ideal method if we were at the 

 threshold of our work, and my opposition to 

 it has always been due to the fact that we did 

 not begin in this way, and that to adopt it 

 now would introduce serious confusion in 

 nomenclature. Mr. Stone's researches in the 

 matter seem to have convinced him that the 

 rigid and uniform enforcement of either prin- 

 ciple would result in practically the same 

 number of changes in generic names; while 

 the alleged ease and simplicity in application 

 seems to render the ' first species ' method 

 preferable to the ' elimination ' process. I re- 

 gret, however, that in his enthusiasm for his 

 view of the case he has been (doubtless un- 

 consciously) led into a few misleading state- 

 ments with regard to the ease of its applica- 

 tion and to various other matters, only a few 

 of which, owing to the vastness of the subject, 

 can be here noticed. First, he makes the as- 

 tounding statement that "Elimination has 

 never been practised in Europe and does not 

 seem to be understood by foreign writers, and 

 in the vast majority of cases the first species 

 is taken by them as the type." The implica- 

 tion is that the 'first species' principle not 

 only now prevails abroad, but ever has been 

 the guiding rule in selecting types of com- 

 posite genera when no type was specified. The 

 truth of the matter is just the reverse! The 

 B. A. Code of 1842 expressly provided that 

 when no type was clearly indicated the author 

 who first subdivided a composite genus might 

 restrict the original name to such part of it 

 as he might deem advisable, and that such 

 assignment should not be subject to subse- 

 quent modification. This ruling has been one 

 of the corner-stones of all subsequent codes, 

 down even to the latest, 'The International 

 Code ' of 1905. The elimination principle fol- 

 lowed as a necessary corollary, and has been 

 used, consciously or unconsciously, with a few 

 individual exceptions, by all subsequent nat- 

 uralists, in dealing with the question of types, 

 unlimited evidence of which could be cited' 

 did space permit. The B. A. Committee sug- 

 gested, however, that ' in many cases ' it might 



