544 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XXI. No. 5.36. 



out what new species have been described in 

 that genus, or important things said about it, 

 in the last ten years. Without the Record I 

 might spend days in the quest, and then not 

 find what I wanted. 



I have tried the Zurich cards (Concilium 

 Bibliographicum), but have not found them so 

 satisfactory. In a discussion at a meeting of 

 the American Association for the Advance- 

 ment of Science a few years ago, Professor II. 

 B. Ward stated that for his purposes the cards 

 were preferable to the Record, so one must 

 grant that needs differ; yet I can not imagine 

 that a taxonomic worker could do without the 

 Record. The cards, as printed, do not list the 

 species separately, although it is now possible 

 to obtain manuscript species-cards for a small 

 sum. Even if cards were printed for all the 

 species, as is done for plants at the Gray Her- 

 barium, I do not think they would be so 

 serviceable as the pages of the Record, where- 

 in the eye can pass rapidly over the names of 

 dozens of species, without having to turn over 

 cards. On the other hand, when one has to do 

 with a long series of years, the advantage of 

 an alphabetical arrangement of all the species 

 of each genus, and of all the genera of each 

 family, is very great; and here, in the long 

 run, the cards will have the advantage. When 

 this time comes, however, it is hoped that the 

 whole will be transferred to printed pages, 

 like the ' Index Kewensis ' and Sherborn's 

 ' Index Animalium.' With regard to the In- 

 ternational Catalogue, I need say nothing 

 after Professor Ward's recent review (Sci- 

 ence, January 27, p. 147) ; but I was very 

 glad to learn, when in England last summer, 

 that the Zoological Society will not abandon 

 the Record while the International Catalogue 

 is conducted on the present basis. 



The great superiority of the Record is, of 

 course, due to the fact that it is prepared by 

 men who have the most intimate acquaintance 

 with the subjects recorded. In no other way 

 can the work be done satisfactorily, and zoolo- 

 gists ought to feel sincerely grateful that men 

 like D. Sharp, G. A. Eoulonger, F. A. Bather, 

 E. A. Smith, K. B. Sharpe and others are 

 willing to labor in their service; to labor, it 

 may be added, for the most trifling pay. 



Under Dr. Sharp's editorship, the work has 

 greatly improved, and has reached a really 

 marvellous standard of excellence, tested by 

 the groups of which one has particular knowl- 

 edge. I do not mean to say that there are 

 no errors; but they are remarkably few, and 

 none are due to gross ignorance, like some of 

 those in the International Catalogue. One 

 amusing slip, a few years ago, is worth citing, 

 but it is wholly exceptional. An entomolog- 

 ical article was published ' By J. D. Tinsley, 

 A. & M. College, Mesilla Park, N. M.' The 

 Zurich card came in due course, with the 

 article credited to ' J. D. Tinsley ana M. Col- 

 lege.' I said to myself, that is a blunder the 

 Zoological Record would never make; but be- 

 hold ! when it arrived, it contained exactly the 

 same blunder. I dare say M. College will be 

 long remembered as an entomological writer. 



Every new volume of the Record rejriinds 

 one of the perennial subject of zoological no- 

 menclature. It does seem that the publication 

 of homonymous generic names is somewhat 

 abating, but I notice in the present volume 

 Acanthophallus, Luehe (not Cope, 1893), 

 Aldrichia, Theobald (not Coquillett, 1894), 

 Aporema, Dall (not Scudder, 1890), Angelia, 

 Lower (not Berlese, 1885), Kirbya, Melichar 

 (not Desvoidy, 1830), Nicholsonia, Tutt (not 

 Kiaer, 1899), Pleroma, Melichar (not Sollas, 

 1888), Rhynchomys, Fairmaire (not Thomas, 

 1895), Rileya, Tluene (not Howard, 1888), 

 Thiiumasia, Westerlund (not Perty, 1830), 

 and some others. All these will of course 

 have to be changed. There are also many 

 names which are nearly the same as others, 

 most of which will probably be changed by 

 some one. I am strongly of the opinion, my- 

 self, that they should be let alone ; as they are 

 distinguishable, and the necessary changes of 

 names are numerous enough. At the same 

 time, it would save trouble if authors would 

 not propose such names. Examples out of 

 the present record are: Ahhottina, Jordan & 

 Fowler (not Ahhottana, Hulst), Asthenoceros, 

 Laidlaw (not Asthenoceras , Buckman), Biroa, 

 Bolivar (not Biroin. Szep.), J5occ/iam, Distant 

 (not Bocchoris, Moore), Bolla, Mabille (not 

 Bollia, Jones), Charidia, Mabille (not Char- 

 idea, Baly), Epimela, Weise (not Epimclus, 



