164 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XX. No. 502 



errors due to misapprehension ; but to charge him with neglect 

 and wilful misrepresentation of another's views involves a pre- 

 sumption of motives which, I trust, are not common among stu- 

 dents of scieuce. I have the highest regard for Professor Morse 

 personally and for his valuable and painstaking work in Japan, 

 not only upon this subject but upon others, and I certainly would 

 not willingly misrepresent his views nor disregard them. He will 

 no doubt have observed that this part of the subject is treated in 

 a much briefer manner than might have seemed desirable, other- 

 wise I do not think he would have found any cause for com- 

 plaint. RoMYN Hitchcock. 



The Woodmont, Washington, D.C., Sept. 12. 



On Biological Nomenclature. 



Professor Underwood's article in Science for Aug. 26 calls 

 for a general expression of views on this subject. The article 

 above referred to was written from the standpoint of the botanist, 

 while the present one will be perhaps more from a zoological 

 standpoint. The writer, however, recognizes no distinction be- 

 tween the two, and firmly believes that the system of nomencla- 

 ture should be absolute and uniform for all branches of biology. 

 Absolutely the same rules should be recognized throughout the 

 departments of botany and zoology, and these rules and regula- 

 tions ought to be speedily decided upon by a congress of the lead- 

 ing biologists of the world, to which every country and organiza- 

 tion so interested should send delegates. In the meantime every 

 one follows his own particular ideas in regard to the matter, 

 which may be either right or wrong. 



I desire here to express my unprejudiced but very decided views 

 on the seven questions which Professor Underwood puts, and 

 will preface them with the remark that in no case can the name 

 of the original erector and describer of a genus or species be sepa- 

 rated therefrom without gross injustice. 



1. Shall there be an initial date in nomenclature? Let us by 

 all means recognize the validity of the first names proposed when 

 accompanied by a sufficiently recognizable description and not 

 preoccupied. In some cases, as with many of the older authors, 

 descriptions must be recognized which would not be considered 

 sufficient at the present day. 



3. Shall names long used be laid aside when claimed for other 

 plants [or animals] on grounds of strict priority? They should, 

 when it is unmistakably evident that the original describer so in- 

 tended. 



3. Shall ' ' the first name under a genus " hold against a pre- 

 vious specific name ? By no means. The specific name first pro- 

 posed should, coupled with the name of its original describer, 

 follow the name of whatever genus it may be finally relegated to. 



4. Shall varietal names have priority over established specific 

 names? Yes, but with the name of the original proposer at- 

 tached. I do not agree with Professor Underwood on this point, 

 but believe that varietal names lay claim to the satne priority as 

 specific names, when they are found to be valid. 



5. Can inappropriate names be cancelled on that ground alone ? 

 They cannot with any degree of justice. 



6. How far has a later writer a right to correct names pre- 

 viously established ? He has no right whatever to in any way 

 change the spelling of a name from what was intended by the 

 original describer. If by a typographical error the name was 

 printed wrong, and the author corrects it later in print, his cor- 

 rection should be accepted. I am strongly in favor, however, of 

 beginning aM specific names with small letters, whatever their 

 origin, and making all compound specific names into simple terms 

 by writing them with the hyphen dropped. I would write Bre- 

 voortia idamaia Wood, or donnellsmiihii, or mariaewilsoni, to use 

 Professor Underwood's examples. I have no right to change the 

 endings in any way whatsoever, neither have I the least right to sup- 

 ply a syllable apparently omitted, judging from the derivation. I 

 would not consider that I had the power to slide or supply a single 

 letter, if by such act I changed the term from what was originally 

 proposed and intended by its describer. My conviction is that, ex- 

 cept in manifest errors of typography, names should be let alone. 

 Errors of orthography may be left to stand. 



7. What credit should be given for generic and specific names? 



Write the name of the author of the specific name, without 

 parentheses, whether there have been a dozen transfers or none at 

 all to a new genus. There is no necessity whatever for shedding 

 glory upon the one who made the transfer. Usually he erects a 

 new genus to accept the transferred species, and the fact that his 

 name will go down the corridors of time coupled to the genus he 

 erected is glory enough. He has no right whatever to the species. 

 Even if he does not erect the genus, he certainly has full credit 

 in the literature for making the change, and the act does not de- 

 mand recognition in the system of nomenclature itself. 



I would write Metzgeria piibescens Schrank, to use the example 

 given in the article referred to, and make no more ado or trouble 

 about it. This signifies always that the authority named described 

 the species originally and originally proposed that name. The 

 founder and date of the genus can be ascertained by referring to 

 any monograph. The generic conceptions of the original authority 

 should not enter Into consideration at all. 



As to the question of " once a synonym, always a synonym," I 

 believe in the negative. If a form, which had been described and 

 then thought to be the same as some other species, is later proven 

 to be a valid species, the name originally proposed should stand. 



Generic names should not agree too closely in orthography. I 

 should say that Richardia ought to preclude Riccardia ; certainly 

 Ccesia should preclude Cesia. I do not think that different deri- 

 vation, or original meaning, presents any excuse for similarity of 

 terms. The difference should be sufficient to preclude any possi- 

 bility of error on the part of a student unfamiliar with both 

 terms. I believe also that a generic term already used in botany 

 should not be proposed in zoology, and vice versa. I would be 

 cautious about changing those which have already been of long 

 standing, however. 



Lastly, specific names should never be capitalized or written 

 with a hyphen; and no comma should be inserted between the 

 specific name and its authority. It would be a great boon to 

 biologists if absolute uniformity could be infused into the system 

 of nomenclature. C. H. Tyler Townsend. 



New Mexico Agricultural College, Sept. 1. 



Grand-Gulf Formation. 



I HAVE read with great interest recent contributions to the lit- 

 erature of the Grand-Gulf formation, including Professor Hil- 

 gard's valuable paper in the American Journal of Science and 

 Judge L. C. Johnson's letter in your last issue. As I have re- 

 cently been summarizing our knowledge of the Post-Eocene Ter- 

 tiary (to appear shortly in Bulletin 84, U. S. Geological Survey, 

 which is already in type) I am moved to add a few words in re- 

 gard to the subject for your columns, which I have already ex- 

 pressed in correspondence with several of those interested. 



At the time of the Grand-Gulf sedimentation the lower valley 

 of the Mississippi was already the theatre of estuarine conditions 

 and operations, which date to a very ancient geological time. 

 Toward the end of the Chesapeake or newer Miocene epoch this 

 gulf extended far into the interior, its south-eastern point of en- 

 trance being somewhere in the meridian of Mobile, or between 

 Mobile and the Appalachicola River. The embayment, which I 

 have called the Gulf of Mississippi, received an immense drainage, 

 corresponding to that of the whole Mississippi valley and perhaps 

 that of the upper lakes of the present St. Lawi-ence system. The 

 operations in progress consisted in the transfer of material from 

 the elevated interior to this gulf by the medium of the drainage, 

 and in all probability a gradual or intermittent shifting of level 

 as weight was removed from the uplands and deposited beyond 

 the shore line. The shallows, as I conceive it, sank and the in- 

 terior rose, thus preserving a sort of balance, and there is some 

 reason to suppose that a specially important movement took place 

 at the end of the Grand-Gulf epoch, by which the more energetic 

 degradation characterizing the Lafayette epoch was inaugurated, 

 the Strait of Georgia closed, and the previously existing islands of 

 central Florida were joined to the mainland. I agree entirely 

 with Hilgard's view that elevation was essential for the geologi- 

 cal operations which are recorded in the stratigraphy of these 

 two epochs. 



The Grand-Gulf strata show gravels, sands (now frequently 



