13 
In Memorias y Revista de la Société “Antonio Alzate,” vol. 
IX, p. 32 (Revista), Professor Herrera asks three questions, to 
which he desires fu!! replies. (1) What subjects of study do you 
know that are more important for natural history than the sim- 
ple description of new species and sub-species? (2) Synonymy 
becomes daily more confused; do you know the cause? what is 
the remedy? (3) Do you think it advisable that the authors' na- 
mes should no longer be attached to the names of species and 
sub-species, but rather the date of publication of those names ? 
For example, instead of Tamias striatus typicus, Merriam, one 
would write Tamias striatus tipicus 25,2,86. 
Our readers will have their own answers to these questions, 
but perhaps we may be allowed to indicate what would be out : 
own. (1) Any subject of natural history study seems to us mo- 
re calculated to advance science than the mere description of 
species—species, if they are to be described, should be compa- 
red one with another and placed in their proper systematic po- 
sition. Itis only when this is done that the study has any claim 
to be a branch of science. (2) The causes of confusion in syno- 
nymy are two: first, 4he ignorance, real or assumed, of other 
people's work that is still displayed by the majority of name- 
givers; secondly, the incompetent descriptions, often without 
illustrations, that continue to be published by many people who 
ought to know better, especially in the form of “preliminary no- 
tices,” so that when the literature is found it cannot be unders- 
tood. As to our remedy, we have already proposed it. We ha- 
ve said, Let the list of species be drafted by a body having so- 
me kind of authority, and let the zoologists of the word agree 
to accept these names and to make the publication of the list 
the date before which they will not go (see NATURAL SCIENCE, 
vol. VIT, p. 218, April, 1896) (3) There are many people, to 
