TIA 
preserve Linnzeus’ names would probably impel 
us to overthrow the usurping title Elasmo- 
branchii in favor of Linnzeus’ quite appropriate 
word Nantes. Linnzeus’ apt Testacea has been 
crowded out of all authority by the upstart 
Mollusca, which, originally ruling over a petty 
section of heterogeneous elements, now stands 
at the head of a vast sub-kingdom. Linnzeus’ 
beautiful name Zoophytes is now replaced by 
Coelenterata, suggestive of famine. The strict 
law of priority applied to the term Reptilia 
would result in restricting it to ordinal rank or 
in worse consequences. Laurenti, 1768, em- 
ployed it to include Linneus’ Amphibia minus 
the Nantes. It then either became a synonym 
of Amphibia or restricted the latter term to the 
Nantes. But the man who at this day attempts 
to oust Reptilia from its position in nomencla- 
ture will shed his ink in yain. Furthermore, 
the contest for the headship of the class em- 
bracing the frogs and salamanders lies between 
Amphibia and Batrachia. No Rane, Ichthyoidea 
or Nudipellifera need apply. 
A word now regarding the use of the word 
Amphibia. Linnzeus and some of his disciples 
included under it not only the reptiles and 
batrachians, but also various fishes. These 
being at length excluded, the term was em- 
ployed for nearly a hundred years by various 
writers of standing to embrace all the reptiles 
and ranine and salamandrine forms. In 1825 
it seems to have been used for the first time by 
Latreille, to designate what are now commonly 
called the batrachians, or amphibians. This is 
the date given by Dr. Baur, and is most prob- 
ably the correct one. 
In 1804 Latreille recognized the fact that the 
frogs and salamanders form a natural group, 
and he called this group the order Batrachii. 
We can hardly suppose that this name will be 
rejected because of its masculine ending. But 
if so, the honor of giving the name to the group 
belongs to Gravenhorst, who in 1807 called it 
Batrachia. But the advocates of Amphibia re- 
ject Gravenhorst’s name, because it was used 
for the group as an order. Then, must every 
group be rechristened whenever its rank is 
changed? I know of no rule of nomenclature 
requiring this, nor does common usage demand 
it. Most ichthyologists regard the EHlasmo- 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8. Vou. VI. No. 151. 
branchii as a subclass of Pisces. Must those who 
consider it a distinct class seek a new name ? 
Whenever the word Mollusca was applied to the 
group of mollusks the name dated from that 
time, even though the group may still have been 
looked upon as an order of Vermes. In the 
words of Professor Cope (Batrachians N. A., p. 
20), ‘the rank assigned to such division is im- 
material ; the idea of the division itself is every- 
thing.’ 
But even in case it were necessary to esti- 
mate correctly the value of a group when its 
name is applied to it, the term Batrachia may 
yet succeed in running the gauntlet. In 1820 
Merrem recognized in Linneeus’ Amphibia, minus 
the Nantes, two distinct classes. These he named 
and adequately defined. The one, Pholidota, 
corresponds to our Reptilia ; the other he called 
the Batrachia, and it corresponds with the 
group now so-called. What rule or practice of 
nomenclature was not complied with by Mer- 
rem in this case? This was five years before 
Latreille restricted the title Amphibia to the 
same class. 
If I correctly understand Dr. Baur, he rejects 
Merrem’s name because the latter writer still 
considered his classes as holding such a relation 
to each other that they might be brought under 
the name Amphibia, regarded, perhaps, some- 
what in the sense of a super-class. Is there 
any law against this? Such a law would have 
to be formulated somewhat thus: A class name 
to be acceptable must originally have been ap- 
plied to the group regarded as a class, and the 
author must have entertained opinions now held 
as orthodox regarding the relationships of his 
class to other classes. 
In conclusion, I will say that, from the evi- 
dence now in, it appears to be a very plain case 
in favor of the defendant, Batrachia. I should 
say that it dates, as a name, from Latrielle, 
1804, or from Gravenhorst, 1807 ; most certainly 
not later than Merrem, 1820. Amphibia has 
been employed in so many senses that it leads to 
confusion. It should be reserved for those who 
may now or hereafter hold there is some special 
relation between the reptiles and batrachians. 
I am sorry to differ with my friends, Dr. Gill 
and Dr. Baur. O. P. Hay. 
U.S. NaTIoNAL MusEuM, September 24, 1897. 
