^30 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XII. No. 306. 



ingston Farrand, Dr. A. Hrdlicka, Dr. Put- 

 nam and Dr. E. E. Dodge. These investigations 

 were made in the Vancouver Islands, Oregon, 

 New Mexico, Arizona and California. 



Chaeles H. Judd, 



Secretary. 



DI30U8SI0N AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



THE EARLIEST USE OF THE NAMES SAUEIA AND 

 BATEACHIA. 



To THE Editor of Science : In glancing 

 over my ' Address in Memory of Edward 

 Drinker Cope,' published by the American 

 Philosophical Society, I find I have inadvert- 

 ently referred to ' Sauria and Serpentes ' as 

 ' Linusean terms ' instead of ' prior terms. ' Ser- 

 pentes only was used by Linnteus, that natur- 

 alist having confounded all his 'Amphibia ' ex- 

 cept the Serpentes under the group ('ordo') 

 named 'Reptiles.' Brongniart first used the 

 name 'Sauriens.' The slip would scarcely be 

 of sufficient consequence to notice were it not 

 that a question of nomenclature of some impor- 

 tance is involved on which I am enabled to 

 throw some light. 



Only the French form of the name — Sauriens 

 — was used by Brongniart (1799) and it has been 

 believed that Latreille (1804) or Dumeril (1806) 

 was the first to give a later equivalent. Mean- 

 while, however, Shaw (1802) used the name 

 LacertsB. There are many who hold that a 

 vernacular name is insufficient and should be 

 superseded by the first applicable Latin term. 

 I do not share in that belief in respect to super- 

 generic groups (orders, etc.), but for the benefit 

 of those who do, give the following facts. 



Brougniart's name Sauriens was used very 

 speedily after its proposal by Cuvier in his 

 Legons d'anatoinie compares in the ' troisieme 

 tableau' at the end of the first volume ('an VIII' 

 = 1800), but there was no Latin equivalent. The 

 Latin term Sauria was first introduced by Dr. 

 James Macartney in a translation of the first 

 volume of Cuvier's work published in 1802. 

 This work must be quite rare, as the only copy 

 I have been able to find is one I purchased at a 

 second hand bookstore when a youth. Its full 

 title is as follows : ' Lectures on Comparative 

 Anatomy. | Translated from the French of | G. 

 CtrviEE, I Member of the National Institute, 



Professor in the College of France, and in the 

 I Central School of the Pantheon, &c. | By 

 William Ross; | under the inspection of | James 

 Macartney, | Lecturer on Comparative Anat- 

 omy and Physiology in St. Bartholomew's Hos- 

 pital, &c. 1 = 1 Vol. I I [etc.] I = I London, | 

 printed at the Oriental Press, by "Wilson and 

 Co., ] for T. N. Longman and O. Eees, Pater- 

 noster row. I — I 1802. 



Macartney is responsible for the nomencla- 

 ture. In his 'Preface,' (p. vi,) he remarks : 

 "The names of the muscles [etc.] have been 

 rendered into Latin" [etc.], and "the same 

 mode has been adopted with respect to many 

 of the terms in Natural History." He adds : 

 "I have taken the liberty of correcting some 

 errors in the original" [etc.], so there can be 

 no doubt that to him is to be accredited the 

 nomenclature adopted. His preface is dated 

 'London, March 18, 1802.' 



All the ordinal names for reptiles are rendered 

 into Latin in the third folded table at the end 

 of the volume, viz.: Les Ch61oniens by Chbl- 

 ONIA ; Les Sauriens by Sauria ; Les Ophidiens 

 by Ophidia, and Les Batraciens by Batra- 

 CHIA. 1802, then, is the date for those names, 

 and not 1804, as stated by Dr. Baur in Science 

 (N. S.,VI., 172), who attributes their first Latin- 

 ization to Latreille (1804). In this work also, 

 it will be seen, is the first Latinization of Batra- 

 ciens. 



Dr. O. P. Hay (in Science, N. S., VI., 772) 

 has advocated the retention of Batrachia in- 

 stead of Amphibia, apparently because he 

 thinks that " one thing is very certain, and that 

 is that we cannot rigidly enforce, with respect 

 to the appellatives of higher rank, the same 

 rules that apply to genera. Common usage 

 must and does determine much in the case of 

 the former terms." If I accepted these ideas, I 

 should still be in favor of retaining the name 

 Amphibia in place of Batrachia. ' Common 

 usage ' among the Germans generally, as well 

 as among many other zoologists, would warrant 

 it. To me the name Batrachia, extended to 

 cover all the class so designated, is very objec- 

 tionable from a philological as well as historical 

 point of view, and Amphibia is an excellent one. 

 Theo. Gill. 



Washington, October 24, 1900. 



