XC PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



sandstones containing the same species of Cucullcea as that found 

 at Marwood. 



The other identifications of the authors of the Stringocephalus- 

 limestone with the Eifel-Hmestone and the hmestones of Plymouth 

 and Torquay, and of their Spirifer-sandstone with the sandstone of 

 Meadfoot, Torbay, are without doubt correct. But I can hardly 

 class the limestone of Chimay with that of the Eifel without farther 

 evidence : and I incline to believe that we shall ultimately find the 

 Devonian series to include many more beds than are contemplated in 

 the table given in this work, and that we shall only appreciate the 

 difficulty of placing these various beds in a consistent order when we 

 have convinced ourselves that no district yet examined in Europe 

 contains all the beds of the series. The enormous development of 

 the Devonian series in the State of New York confirms the propriety 

 of this conclusion, which indeed is only a reasonable deduction from 

 natural facts ; as no one deposit could be assumed to have extended 

 over the whole surface of the earth. 



I cannot take leave of this valuable work without expressing my 

 dissent to the creation of new specific names for species long since 

 described by others. From a passage in the Introduction, the authors 

 seem to consider that they may change any name which does not 

 express any of the characteristic points of the species. It is a duty 

 to protest against such a doctrine, which, if generally carried out, 

 would throw Natural History back into a hopeless chaos. The evil 

 is aggravated in the present instance by the almost entire omission of 

 synonyms in the index of species : so that a student can only ascer- 

 tain whether a species long since named is described in the work by 

 looking through the several lists of synonyms of the species described 

 in the text. 



In respect to the last remark of Mr. Sharpe, I have thought it 

 right to preserve it as expressing his opinion on a point of great im- 

 portance. Without doubt the wanton change of a name long since 

 proposed is in every respect wrong ; but at the same time the pre- 

 servation of names which convey a wrong idea, and force every 

 student of nature to go through the process of disabusing his mind 

 of that idea before he can reason on the facts before him, may assuredly 

 be carried too far. The remarks of the Sandbergers especially apply 

 to this class of names, as they observe that no one will probably 

 dispute the propriety of adhering to the maxim of Linnaeus, that 

 those names which indicate the essential characteristics in the habitat 

 of the animal are the best when we are naming species previously 

 unknown ; but they have gone further, by here and there apply- 

 ing this excellent maxim to species which have before received names 

 expressive of no real (I may even say too often a wrong) meaning, 

 such as primcevuSy primordialis, incertus, dubius, anceps, ambi- 

 giius, neglectus, ajffiniSy similis, &c. ; adding, however, that in cases 

 where their materials were insufficient for the foundation of a new 

 name on sound principles, they have left the old name undisturbed. 

 Let me add also that Messrs. Sandberger have carefully preserved 

 to the first discoverers of species the honour due to them by still 



