1896.] Editor’s Table. 1027 
EDITOR’S TABLE. 
It is difficult to eradicate from scientific literature a name or word 
which has become current, even after it has been found to be an expres- 
sion of ignorance or error. Thus some names introduced into Zoology 
die hard. It is perfectly well-known that the grouping of forms named 
by Cuvier Pachydermata, is entirely unnatural, and the appropriate 
positon of all of its contents has been exactly determined ; yet the word 
occasionally crops up still in the literature. The supposed primary 
divisions of fishes Ganoidei and Teleostei, have a still more vigorous 
vitality, although it is perfectly clear that there is no use for either 
term. The supposed Ganoid division is thoroughly heterogeneous, its 
contents forming with the Teleostei a more comprehensive division, the 
Teleostomi of Owen, which naturally falls into several primary divisions 
three of which were included in the Ganoidei by Agassiz and Miiller. 
Perhaps the most pestilent pretender of the list, is the word Amphibia, 
which is so frequently used instead of the proper name of the class 
Batrachia. The name Amphibia was originally applied to a combina- 
tion of the Reptilia and Batrachia, before the fundamental differences 
between the two were known. When the Batrachia were first separated 
from the Reptilia, the new name was naturally applied to the new 
division, and the name Amphibia would have been more applicable to 
the larger division of its former self i. e. the Reptilia. As, however, its 
definition accorded with neither the Reptilia nor Batrachia, it was not 
used for either, nor was it introduced to take the place of Batrachia 
with a definition, until a few years ago by Huxley. This was done in 
defiance of the universal usage of naturalists at the time, and probably 
in ignorance of the real state of the case, since it frequently happens 
that men engaged in the real work of biological science, find questions 
of names irksome and stupid. Nevertheless it is a distinct advantage 
always to have but one name for one thing; and that name should be 
the oldest which was applied to the thing in question as determined by 
the definition given. Applying this principle, the name Batrachia has 
a quarter century priority over Amphibia. 
In the April, 1896 number of this journal (p. 292) we published 
what purported to be a review of a work by Wachsmuth and Springer, 
which was signed by one of our frequent contributors. In a foot note 
the ye g stated to have been published in 1895, We have learned 
