34 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
Of the publication of Thames and the date to be assigned to 
each Name or Combination of Names. 
§ XXXV. The date of a name or combination of names is that of their 
actual publication, that is to say from the time of occurrence of such cir- 
cumstances as give to the name an irrevocable publicity. 
§ XXXVI. Publication consists in the public sale or distribution of 
printed books, pamphlets or plates. To this category botanists add the 
distribution or sale of specimens of the plants described, to which written 
or printed tickets containing the proposed new names are attached. (DC.) 
To constitute publication nothing less than the insertion of a distinct exposition of 
essential characters in a printed book can be deemed sufficient. (B. A.) 
Satisfactory plates or figures which express the essential characters of the organism 
concerned, and on which the proposed name is engraved or printed, are generally 
held to be equivalent to a definition. 
The exception in favor of published herbaria by botanists, appears injudicious, and 
is the result of an ancient usage which fortunately has never obtained in zoology, and 
as a method of publication in modern days can be seldom necessary and never advis- 
able. 
§ XXXVII. A communication in a public assembly, of names applied to 
specimens in collections, the ticketing of plants in public gardens, or llie 
reading of a paper containing new names before a scientific society, does 
not constitute publication. (DC., Tli., Benth., V., B. A.) 
Communications to a public assembly unless published in an immediate literal 
report ol the meeting, rest only on the uncertain recollections of the audience. Labels 
in public museums and gardens may be transposed or replaced from hour to hour. 
Communications to a society may be subject to amplification, correction or revision, 
up to the time of printing. In all the above cases the fact of publication cannot be 
placed above question. 
The inadmissibility of adopting the date of reading of a paper is shown by suppos- 
ing a case in which it failed altogether to be printed. No one would then assert that it 
had actually been published. Yet that such honor or credit as may be due to the origi- 
nal discoverer of a fact, can be, and is, secured to him by such an announcement of it, 
whether he be the first to print it or not, no one will deny. This seems to be the prin- 
ciple contended for by the few who demand priority from the date of reading. It is 
possible that some believe that credit or honor is secured by the application of new 
names, but scientific nomenclature owing its right to exist to the fundamental principle 
of fixity, should not be allowed to suffer from considerations of this nature. 
That the majority of American naturalists concur in the above, is manifest from the 
replies to query V of the circular before alluded to. 
§ XXXVIII. The date borne by a publication is presumed to be accur- 
ate until the contrary is proved. (DC.) 
It is, nevertheless, well known in some cases this date is not correct, or represents 
the presentation instead of the publication of the matter bearing it. This is, for in- 
stance, the case with several of D’Orbigny’s works and with the transactions of some 
learned societies. 
Such absence of frankness and plain dealing in matters where the utmost precision 
is desirable, is highly reprehensible. It would hardly be unfair in instances where a 
doubt arises as to priority between an honestly dated work and one issued as above, 
to throw the onus probandi on the publishers of the latter. 
