JULY 2, 1897.] 
as Leptotila was repeatedly used by Swain- 
son, and thus with obvious intent, it could 
not be ruled out as an ‘ evident typograhical 
error’ for Leptoptila, and so was accepted as 
simply a name, and therefore available 
under the A. O. U. maxim, ‘“‘A name is 
only a name and has no necessary mean- 
ing ;”’ or, to cite the B. A. Code of 1842, ‘In 
truth, it matters not in the least by what 
conventional sound we agree to designate 
an individual object, provided the sign to 
be employed be stamped with such an 
authority as will suffice to make it pass 
current.’’? It is, therefore, entirely thrown 
out of the category of such cases as Pregetia 
and Fregata, discussed above. 
It certainly is to be hoped that all sensi- 
ble writers will go on writing as ‘ sensibly as 
they know how ;’ but in the above remarks 
on cafer and Leptotila—ostensibly anent the 
‘Merton Rules,’ but really in ridicule of the 
A. O. U. Code—it is evident that not all of 
the ‘ puerility’ is on the side of the sup- 
porters of Canon XL. 
Nos. 34-37 of the Merton Rules call for 
no comment, being in essential conformity 
to current usage. We must dissent, how- 
ever, from Rule 38 in so far as it relates to 
‘co-types,’ this part being to the effect that 
when a species is ‘described from more 
than one specimen, no single one being se- 
lected as the type,’ the ‘type’ in this case 
is ‘the sum of the co-types.’ The position 
here taken seems so obviously unwarranted 
as to hardly merit discussion. 
Rules 42-48, on the restriction of genera, 
are refinements of existing rules relating to 
this subject, treating the matter in detail 
on lines already for the most part generally 
approved. 
Rule 49 provides a most cumbersome 
way of designating subspecies. Rules 50 and 
51 relate respectively to the use of signs 
and methods of citation, the latter formu- 
lating practices already more or less in 
vogue. 
SCIENCE. 
19 
As already said, the ‘Merton Rules’ are 
in the main in accord with other advanced 
modern rules and usages ; the innovations, 
as noted above, are for the most part posi- 
tively mischievous, from the standpoint of 
fixity in names; the adoption of the tenth 
edition of Linnzus’s ‘Systema Nature’ we 
regard as the one especially commendable 
feature of this new code, only so, however, 
on account of its geographical origin, since 
all recently promulgated Codes take this 
date as the starting point for the law of 
priority. 
J. A. ALLEN. 
THE ORIGIN OF GREEN RIVER. 
In his Current Notes on Physiography in 
No. 121 (April 23d) of this JourNAL, Pro- 
fessor Davis, under the heading: ‘Is Green 
River antecedent to the Uinta Mountains ?’ 
remarks that this question is not closed, as 
had been assumed by Mr. J. D. Irving in 
his paper on ‘the Brown’s Park beds of 
Utah,’ and further that it does not appear 
clear from the latter’s statements whether 
he considers it to be a superposed river, as 
maintained by me, or antecedent, as stated 
by Powell. He very pertinently remarks 
that it is remarkable, considering how fre- 
quently the Green is referred to as an ante- 
cedent river, that so little attention is given 
to the difficulties that such origin involves. 
Long before the appearance of the two text- 
books he quotes (Tarr and Scott), eConte 
and Geikie had each referred to it as ante- 
cedent and illustrating the slow uplift of 
mountain ranges, in apparent unconscious- 
ness that any other view is possible. Suess, 
on the other hand, in his exceedingly care- 
ful review (Antlitz der Erde, I., p. 736) of 
the structure of this region, adopted my 
view without any reference to that of 
Powell. 
In Powell’s original publication (Explo- 
ration of the Colorado river of the West, 
p. 153) he makes no mention of the struc- 
