170 
expression of his views, lost gifts and legacies 
and might lose more. The occurrence is ex- 
tremely regrettable. It might have been bet- 
ter if President Andrews had not felt called 
upon to advocate the views of a political party 
unpopular in Rhode Island, but if the trustees 
have by their action increased ‘gifts and lega- 
cies’ to Brown University they have done 
harm to the cause of education. The first part 
of President Andrews’ letter of resignation is 
as follows : 
Believing that, however much I might desire to do 
so, I should find myself unable to meet the wishes of 
the corporation as explained by the special commit- 
tee recently appointed to confer with me on the in- 
terests of the University without surrendering that 
reasonable liberty of utterance which my predecessors, 
my faculty colleagues and myself have hitherto en- 
joyed, and in the absence of which the most ample 
endowment for an educational institution would have 
but little worth, I respectfully resign the presidency 
of the University, and also my professorship therein, 
to take effect not later than the first day of the ap- 
proaching September. 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
AMPHIBIA OR BATRACHIA. 
PROFESSOR GILL in his excellent address 
‘Some Questions of Nomenclature,’ delivered 
at the Buffalo meeting of the American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science,* makes 
the following remarks about the name Amphibia 
(p. 600): ‘‘ Why should the name Amphibia dis- 
appear and Batrachia and Reptilia usurp its 
place ? Amphibia is a far better name for the 
Batrachia, and in every way defensible for it. 
The name had especial relation to it originally, 
and it was first restricted to it asa class.’”’ In 
the Editor’s Table of the American Naturalist, 
December, 1896, p. 1027, we read the following 
from the pen of Professor Cope: ‘‘It is difficult 
to eradicate from scientific literature a name or 
word which has become current, even after it has 
been found to be an expression of ignorance or 
error. Thus some names introduced into zool- 
ogy die hard. Perhaps the most pestilent pre- 
tender of the list is the word Amphibia, which 
is so frequently used instead of the proper 
* Scrence, N.S., Vol. IV., No. 95, Oct. 23, 1896, 
p- 581-601. 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Vou. VI. No. 135. 
name of the class Batrachia. The name Am- 
phibia was originally applied to a combination 
of the Reptilia and Batrachia, before the funda- 
mental differences between the two were known. 
When the Batrachia were first separated from 
the Reptilia the new name was naturally ap- 
plied to the new division, and the name Am- 
phibia would have been more applicable to the 
larger division of its former self, 7. e., the 
Reptilia. As, however, its definition accorded 
with neither the Reptilia nor Batrachia, it was 
not used for either; nor was it introduced to 
take the place of Batrachia with a definition, 
until a few years ago by Huxley. This was . 
done in defiance of the universal usage of 
naturalists at the time, and probably in igno- 
rance of the real state of the case, since it fre- 
quently happens that men engaged in the real 
work of biological science find questions of 
names irksome and stupid. Nevertheless it is 
a distinct advantage always to have but one 
name for one thing, and that name should be 
the oldest which was applied to the thing in 
question as determined by the definition given. 
Applying this principle, the name Batrachia 
has a quarter century priority over Amphibia.”’ 
I shall show that the opinion of Professor 
Gill is the only one that can be accepted.* 
In the 10th edition of Linné} we have the 
following : 
Classis III. Amphibia. 
I. Reptiles os respirans : Pedes quattuor. 
103, Testudo ; 104, Draco; 105, Lacerta; 106, 
Rana. 
II. Serpentes, 
nulle. 
107, Crotalus; 108, Boa; 109, Coluber; 110, 
Anguis ; 111, Amphisbena ; 112, Cecilia. 
Ill. Nantes, Spiracula lateralia, Pinne nata- 
toriz. 
113, Petromyzon ; 114, Raja; 115, Squalus ; 116, 
Chimera ; 117, Lophius ; 118, Acipenser. 
os respirans, Pedes Pinneye 
The next author of importance to be men- 
tioned is Alexandre Brogniart. His ‘ Essai 
*Nine years ago I followed Cope (Beitrage zur 
Morphogenie des Carpus und Tarsus der Vertebraten 
I. Theil. Batrachia. Jena, Gustay Fischer), but later 
I found that I was mistaken. 
{Caroli Linnei Systema Nature. Tomus I. Editio 
Decima, Reformata Holmiz. 1758. Pp. 194-238. 
