312 REPORT ON THE STATE CABINET. 



of the term Atrypa had, in a measure, superseded that of Tebebratula. 

 After describing Atrypa extans, A. nucleus^ A. cuspidata^ A. hisulcata, A. 

 deflecta^ A. recurvirostra ^ A. exigua and A. modesta, I wrote as follows at 

 the close of the last description : 



" This species, with the three preceding ones, form a group, presenting 

 characters which may require their separation from tlie true Atrypse. These 

 characters consist in the elevation of the dorsal * yalve along the centre, with 

 a depression or sinus on the ventral valve, being the reverse of the usual 

 arrangement. The beak is incurved, with a perforation at the apex, which 

 occupies, also, a part or all of the deltidial area, being usually narrow and 

 long. 



" Mr. Conrad some time since proposed the name Stenocisma for some 

 specimens of the group of Atrypse or Terebratulse, which he subsequently- 

 abandoned. Should the characters here noticed be found persistent, and 

 accompanied hj the narrow foramen, I propose to restore the name first indi- 

 cated by Mr. Conrad for the genus." 



T intended to restore the name Stenocisma, should these species be 

 found to possess characters corresponding with those given by Mr. Conrad 

 to his genus. We have the assertion, however, from tliis palaeontologist 

 " that Mr. Conrad had suggested for this shell {A. modesta) the generic 

 name Stenocisma." He does not seem to consider it necessary for him 

 to say when or where Mr. Conrad had made this suggestion, but merely 

 to make the assertion : nor does it appear that he had ever seen Mr. 

 Conrad's Report, or knew anything about it. He might, however, 

 recollect a code older than the Linnsean system of nomenclature, which 

 says, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." 



When Mr. Meek was writing this note, he either knew, or he did not 

 know, what Mr. Conrad had written of Stenocisma. If he did not know, 

 it would have been well to have expressed a less decided opinion ; and if 

 he did know, he has falsified the record. This is only one of many, not 

 dissimilar cases, where this author assumes the rectification of other 

 people's errors, or the assertion of scientific facts, with just about the 

 same degree of correctness as he exhibits in the above-quoted paragraph. 

 This mode of treating a scientific question may serve his purpose or suit 

 his animus, but it is scarcely in accordance with the dignified character 

 of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. 



* The terms "ventral" and " dorsal" were tlien used in reverse sense of that in which they 

 are noTC employed. 



