884 L:hitors’ Table. { November, 
also cannot be carried into practice, however much we may desire 
the reverse were true. othing temains but that we accept any 
description and diagnosis, and when these fall below the standard 
set by our French colleagues, let the critic and reviewer use their 
best endeavors that such defects be made as odious as possible. 
In the Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, Professor 
Gill insists on the adoption of a generic name proposed by him- 
self without description, in preference to a name proposed later, 
by another author, whose description contains some errors. Ihe 
opposite course had been pursued by Professors Jordan and Gil- 
bert, a circumstance which gives rise to the criticism in question. 
Professor Gill admits the facts to be as above stated, and there- 
upon makes the following remarks: “ What is the advantage of 
any description? According to the rules of the British and 
American Associations for the Advancement of Science, a de- 
Scription is necessary as the basis of permanent nomenclature, 
but like many of the other rules propounded in those codes, ie 
is no proper logical basis therefor.” Professor Gill then proceeds 
to make the usual statements about the inadequacy of the ear oi 
generic descriptions, etc., a mode of reasoning generally resorte 
to under similar circumstances. d hi 
In taking his position, it is evident that Professor Gill and ‘a 
school (for he is not alone in his views) have to contend not nes, 4 
with the wisdom of the American and British Associations, but w! 
that of the other bodies above mentioned. It would seem ps 
fluous for us to defend a fortification so strongly held, but ¢ “ 
heresy in question has had considerable run in America, and 4d 
fitting that said linen should be washed where it has been soi a 
In brief then, one reason why a description is necessary 
jl page : jence 1S 
adding a new name to scientific nomenclature, is, that scien 
