222 C. R. Keyes — Bethany Limestone. ' 



There is perhaps no department of geological science that is 

 so backward in its development as that of nomenclature. 

 In botany, in zoology and paleontology there exists a " code " 

 or set of rules by wliich all questions regarding priority may 

 be readily settled. In geology there is no such lixed standard 

 for guidance. This very problem was forcibly presented by 

 Professor T. McK. Hughes before the British committee on 

 Classification and Nomenclature, at the London meeting of the 

 International Geological Congress,"^ and the statement was 

 made that at present " there is no tribunal to which such points 

 can be referred except public opinion." But while there is no 

 special printed " code " to follow, as in other branches of nat- 

 ural history, there are certain general rules which are univer- 

 sally regarded as governing the naming of formations. The 

 first of these is that there must be some definition. There 

 may be differences of opinion as to what constitutes a proper 

 definition, but that the formation to which a name is applied 

 must be defined in some way is everywhere accepted as funda- 

 mental in the demands of a term to recognition. Of recent 

 years Prof. H. S. Williams has more clearly formulated the 

 essential elements constituting modern geological definition. 

 These are geological position, geographic distribution and bio- 

 logical definition. It is expected, therefore, that in presenting 

 its claims for a place in nomenclature, no term has grounds for 

 consideration unless it complies in some measure with the re- 

 quirements with which it is necessary to conform in order to 

 avoid confusion. Although it may not always be explicitly 

 expressed, a formation must have some of the essential charac- 

 ters described in order that it may be again recognized when 

 met with ; otherwise its name is meaningless. 



In alluding recently to the term Bethany, as having priority 

 over all other names for the basal number of the Missourian 

 series, only the bare fact was stated. The reasons for that con- 

 clusion may be now briefly considered in order to show that 

 the objections urged against it, at least in their present form, 

 are not valid. Chronologically arranged, the special references 

 to the limestone in question are as follows : 



1862. Broadhead, Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. ii, pp. 311, 144. 



1870. White, Geology, Iowa, vol. i, p. 246. 



1873. Broadhead, Missouri Geol. Sur., Iron Ores and Coal Fields, pt. ii, p. 97, 

 et seq. 



1894. Haworthand Kirk, Kansas Univ. Quart., vol. ii, p. 108 (January). 



1894. Keyes, Missouri Geol. Sur., vol. iv, p. 82 (Noveoaber). 



1895. Tilton, Iowa Geol. Sur., vol. iii, p. 144 (February). 

 1895. Ha worth, Kansas Univ. Quart., vol. iii, p 275 (April). 



1895. Keyes, this Journal, III, vol. 1, p. 243 (September). 



1896. Haworth, Univ. Geol. Sur. Kansas, vol. i, p. 159. 



* Cong. geol. international, 4me Sess., 1888, App. B, p. 14, 1891. 



