NovEMBER 19, 1897.] 
sirable for consciousness or thought. I have sug- 
gested ‘ Personal Selection (8) for the selection 
of individual persons by personal choice, analo- 
gous to‘Sexual Selection’ (9) in the animal world. 
Furthermore, Darwin’s ‘Artificial Selection’ 
should be used, as he used it, with reference 
only to securing results by induced mating. 
“10, 11, 12. In all sorts of so-called ‘selec- 
tion,’ considered as factors in progress from gener- 
ation to generation, in which the laws of natural 
selection and physical reproduction do not operate 
together, I think it is extremely desirable that 
we discard the word ‘selection’ in toto, and give 
to each case a name which shall apply to it 
alone. The cases of the preservation of indi- 
viduals and groups by reason of their social en- 
dowments do illustrate natural selection with 
physical reproduction, so I propose ‘ Social Se- 
lection’ (10) for that. But in the instances in 
which either physical heredity is not operative 
(12), or in which it is not the only means of 
transmission (11), we cannot secure clearness 
without new terms; for these two cases I have 
suggested ‘Social Suppression’ (11), and ‘So- 
cial Generalization’ (12). The phrase ‘ Imita- 
tive Selection’ is given in the table alternately 
for the latter (12), seeing that the discussions of 
the topic usually employ the term ‘Selection’ 
and use (wrongly) the ‘ Natural Selection’ anal- 
ogy. Selection may be used also when there is 
no reference to race-progress (and so no danger 
of the misuse of the biological analogy) ; since 
it then means presumably the ‘conscious 
choice’ of psychology and of pre-Darwinian 
theory.’’* J. MARK BALDWIN. 
PRINCETON, October 20, 1897. 
AMPHIBIA VS. BATRACHIA. 
I HAVE been much interested in reading the 
. communications of Dr. Gill and Dr. Baur on the 
above subject, and having developed certain 
*Tt may be well to add that this table is not in- 
tended to be altogether exhaustive from the biological 
standpoint. For example, Professor Minot’s ‘ Post- 
Selection’ and Romanes’ ‘ Physiological Selection’ do 
not fall readily into the scheme. Nor are the differ- 
ent headings in all cases exclusive of one another, e.g., 
Darwin really included both the cases (I. and II.) of 
Natural Selection under the single phrase ; and justly 
so, seeing that they illustrate a single principle. 
SCIENCE. 
173 
convictions thereon I beg leave to state them. 
Before proceeding to do this I wish to express 
my appreciation of the reasonableness of the 
condition of doubt in which Dr. Wilder finds 
himself. 
Formerly I employed the term Batrachia. 
Later I became inclined to regard Amphibia as 
having superior claims, principally because it 
has been used and insisted on by many careful 
writers. I trust that my present views rest 
upon a better foundation. 
In Dr. Baur’s communication of July 20th 
his conclusion is summed up in the following 
words: 
‘“< Three years later Latreille used the Latin 
names Reptilia and Amphibia for de Blainville’s 
classes Reptiles and Amphibiens, and these names 
ought to be used.”’ 
However, it appears to me that he has failed 
to tell us why they ought to be used ; that is, 
he has not stated the principles which make it 
obligatory on us to use them. He has only 
given us an excellent history of the case and 
his conclusion. We have definite laws govern- 
ing the formation and use of generic and specific 
names, but the only law cited by Dr. Baur 
which applies to appellatives of higher rank is 
that which deprives of binding authority all 
vernacular names, even though they may seem 
to imply the Latin forms. This rule, which 
most naturalists will endorse, materially clears 
the ground in the present case. Chéloniens, 
Ophidiens, Batraciens, and Amphibiens stand 
on the same footing as Schildkroten, Schlangen, 
Toads, and Turtles. 
It might be supposed that Dr. Baur relies on 
the law of priority to sustain him, since he is so 
careful, and properly so, to give the dates of 
proposal of each of the names employed; but 
the fact that he rejects Rane as a name for the 
frogs, etc., makes it evident that he demands 
something more. Dr. Gill says that we must 
be guided by the law of priority in the selection 
of names. 
One thing is very certain, and that is that we 
cannot rigidly enforce, with respect to the ap- 
pellatives of higher rank, the same rules that 
apply to genera. Common usage must and 
does determine much in the case of the former 
terms. The law of priority and a desire to 
