Makch 27, 1903. J 



SCIENCE. 



507 



fossil before printing the name I proposed to 

 give it, I thereby validated the manuscript 

 name, and no matter how plain the author's 

 intent may have been, the specific name globu- 

 losa must prevail. They would, therefore, 

 write the binomial as Cucumites globulosus. 

 Accepting this latter view, an immediate and 

 pronounced divergence of opinions arose as 

 to the authority for the specific name and its 

 combination. Some aver that, although I 

 did mention Lesquereux's manuscript name, 

 I was the first to rescue it from the limbo of 

 nomina nuda and habilitate it by means of a 

 description and illustration, hence it became 

 my name. Those who hold this view would 

 write it Cucumites globulosus (Knowlton), or 

 if using the double citation, as C. glohulosus 

 (Knowlton) Cockerell, on the ground that 

 Cockerell first actually made the combination 

 in his note in Science. Others, all of them 

 botanists, claim that gloh'ulosa{us) was Les- 

 quereux's specific name which I had obligingly 

 published for him, and that the authority 

 should read: Cucumites glohulosus (Les- 

 quereux) Cockerell. Still others argue that 

 although I did not actually refer gloiulosa 

 to the genus Cucum,ites I virtually did so, 

 and they would write it C. glohulosus (Les- 

 quereux) Knowlton. This last contingent, 

 while denying the right to interpret my ob- 

 vious intention to give the plant a new name, 

 insist on supplying me with an intention to 

 do that which I did not intend ! 



Tabulated we have the following results: 



Cucumites Lesquereuxii Knowlton. Ad- 

 vocated by twenty-one systematists, mainly 

 zoologists. 



Cucumites glohulosus (Knowlton). Advo- 

 cated by two zoologists. 



Cucumites glohulosus (Knowlton) Cock- 

 erell. Advocated by six zoologists. 



Cucumites glohulosus (Lesquereux) Cock- 

 erell. Advocated by eleven botanists. 



Cucum,ites glohulosus (Lesquereux) Knowl- 

 ton. Advocated by two botanists. 



It may be worth while to attempt an analy- 

 sis of the above diverse results to see if it is 

 possible to ascertain the underlying prin- 

 ciples which governed the several decisions. 

 Those who advocate the first combination in 



the above list would seem to be going on the 

 common-sense principle, namely, that the ob- 

 vious intention of the author should be re- 

 spected. This, as I understand it, the so- 

 called Kew Eule permits. But it is very 

 much with this as it is when a game is played 

 with cards. It might be most logical for 

 each card to have a fixed value, but when 

 different games are played they are played 

 according to the rules of the particular game, 

 and the cards have the value fixed by the 

 rules of that game. The ornithologists are 

 supposed to be playing, to continue the simile, 

 according to the rules of the American Orni- 

 thologists' Union, which, on the point at issue, 

 is as follows : 



" § 5. Of names published simultaneously. 

 Canon XVII., 3. Of names of undoubtedly 

 equal pertinency, * * * that is to be preferred 

 which stands first in the book." 



As it is beyond question that the name 

 Carya glohulosa appears first in my paper, 

 and is followed by a full description of the 

 organism, the above rule would seem to fix 

 glohulosa as the proper specific name. In the 

 matter of deciding the authority. Canon 

 XXXII. of the A. O. U. code is very plain. 

 This reads : ' A nom,en nudum,, generic or 

 specific, may be adopted by a subsequent au- 

 thor, but the name takes both its date and 

 authority from the time when, and from the 

 avithor by whom, the name becomes clothed 

 with significance by being properly defined 

 and published.' In conjunction these rules 

 fix the name as Cucum,ites glohulosus (Knowl- 

 ton). 



The botanists are supposed to be working 

 under the so-called Eochester rules, and this 

 point is covered in part by Article VT., Publi- 

 cation of Species. ' Publication of a species 

 consists only (1) in the distribution of a 

 printed description of the species named.' As 

 these conditions are fulfilled in my paper, this 

 rule also fixes the specific name as glohulosa. 

 There appears to be no provision in the 

 Eochester rules for fixing the authority in 

 cases like this one under discussion. 



In conclusion I may say that I am forced 

 to agree with Professor Cockerell that under 

 the rules the name of the Vermont fossil must 



