February 22, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



309 



listed in this discussion may be grouped as 

 follows : 



1. The method of elimination is correct in 

 principle. Even the advocates of the first- 

 species rule admit this. It therefore follows 

 that, since these two methods are diametrically 

 opposed to each other, one of them must be 

 wrong. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, 

 is reached that the advocates of the first- 

 species rule are contending for a confessedly 

 wrong principle. 



2. The method of elimination is in harmony 

 with the law of priority It upholds the 

 action of the author who first took out the 

 first species and made it the type of a new 

 genus. In seeking to nullify such action the 

 exponents of the first-species rule are proceed- 

 ing in direct opposition to the law of priority 

 — the basic law on which, more than on any 

 other, the stability of our nomenclature con- 

 fessedly depends. 



3. The principle of elimination is emiodied 

 in the majority of the codes of nomenclature 

 from the very first. The advocates of the 

 first-species rule are, therefore, seeking to 

 overthrow a principle that has long been au- 

 thoritatively recognized and adopted. 



4. The difficulty in elimination is a decided 

 benefit to science. The subject of nomen- 

 clature is altogether too important to be en- 

 trusted to the amateur; only the seasoned 

 scientist, who is thoroughly conversant with 

 the literature of the subject, should ever at- 

 tempt so important a matter. 



5. Elimination is as certain in its results as 

 is the first-species rule. With a perfected set 

 of rules, any two trained scientists can be 

 depended upon to arrive at the same conclu- 

 sion in practically every case by the elimina- 

 tion method. The first-species method is not 

 more certain, owing to the fact that in several 

 cases the first species cited was incorrectly 

 identified, and by accepting this name we 

 should thereby be led into an error. Nothing 

 Bhort of an examination of the literature on 

 the subject will secure correct results. 



This is the gist of the whole matter. Now, 

 I ask in all seriousness: Can any thoughtful 

 person, having the best interests of science at 

 heart, conscientiously advocate the adoption 



of the first-species rule — a rule that is ad- 

 mittedly wrong in principle, that is in direct 

 opposition to the fundamental law of priority, 

 that is also in opposition to the codes of 

 nomenclature that have been officially adopted 

 from the earliest times, and that is liable to 

 lead to erroneous results ? 



D. W. COQUILLETT 



U. 8. National Museum, 

 January 29, 1907 



THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



' The good of the cause ' must ever be held 

 paramount in the estimation of every right- 

 minded worker. It is for this reason alone, 

 as I state from abundant knowledge, that 

 many earnest students of American geology 

 have refrained from going into print on mat- 

 ters of criticism affecting the U. S. Geological 

 Survey. I should woefully regret the neces- 

 sity of adopting Dr. Branner's conclusion as 

 to the prime reason for the rule of silence 

 among working geologists outside the survey. 

 The best friends of the national organization 

 have not publicly expressed opinions often 

 privately uttered, simply because personal con- 

 siderations have been held secondary to the 

 progress of science. The field of American 

 geology is so wide and the best possible 

 achievements of one handicapped by other 

 obligations is so limited, that the local in- 

 vestigator and the expeditionary observer learn 

 to heartily welcome honest review of their own 

 work by men better equipped with tools, duly 

 qualified to gather the facts and not less 

 capable of ratiocination, by reason of previous 

 training, breadth of experience and ability to 

 demonstrate and show cause for the conclu- 

 sions given in their publications. 



The recent unfortunate controversy illus- 

 trated by the letters of Messrs. Walcott, Bran- 

 ner and Hobbs in the columns of Science 

 would be deplorable enough under any circum- 

 stances, and it might be passed without 

 further remark were it not for several im- 

 portant facts and certain issues which ought 

 not to be longer left in doubt. 



1. The undisputed high standing of all these ' 

 persons, and their many and valuable con- 

 tributions to American geology, make it incon- 



