25 
NOTES AND COMMENTS. 
FAKES AND FORGERIES. 
A. Vayson de Pradenne has recently • issued a handsome 
volume entitled Les fraudes en archeologie prehistorique avec 
quelques exemples de comparaison en archeologie generate et 
sciences naturelles } V. Gordon Childe in referring to this 
in The Antiquaries Journal for October says, ‘ The English 
may, perhaps, derive some small comfort from the circumstance 
that the most glaring and persistent frauds were perpetrated 
in countries where criticism is traditionally frank and brutal. 
The only extensive fraud in this country which has had any 
lasting repercussions is that of Dumbuck and Dunbuie, which 
Munro exposed with ruthless directness. The normal English 
practice of greeting well-sponsored forgeries with (at worst) 
polite silence may, perhaps, after all, be the safest road to 
ensure their eventual burial. But it is not the attitude 
recommended by Vayson ; to him every one who, out of 
laziness, courtesy, or like motives, fails to fall upon the 
fraud ferociously is a coward and a traitor. At the same time, 
the reader will be struck by the part played by Englishmen — 
John Evans, Seton-Karr, etc., in unmasking forgeries 
abroad.’ 
RETICULATA OR RIDICULATA ? 
In The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of 
London, issued in November, Dr. T. N. George has a paper 
on ‘ British Reticulate Spiriferidae.’ From this we gather ; 
‘*At first sight it would appear that, according to Rule 30 (d) 
of the Rules of Nomenclature, Reticularia reticulata, of which 
the specific name lyas the same meaning as the generic, auto- 
matically becomes the type : the late Mr. Buckman informed 
me (in lit.) that such was his reason for adopting this species 
without discussion (1908, p. 31) and further added, “ No- 
subsequent author has any right to choose another species ; 
if he does so, it is invalid.” On the other hand, as Dr.. 
Bather has pointed out to me, since “ reticulata ” is not 
literally the same word, though it may have the same meaning, 
as ” Reticularia,” it would appear that the question strictly 
falls under Recommendation III (i) of the Rules, which 
suggests the adoption of a different but similarly-meaning 
specific name only when there is no contra-indicating factor. 
In the present instance, the factor which prevents preference 
being shown to Reticularia reticulata is the fact that a 
genolectotype has already been selected from amongst M ’Coy’s 
original syntypes, “ and such designation is not subject to 
change.” ’ 
1 Paris : Nourry, pp. viii-j-676, with 46 plates. 
1933 Feb. 1 
B 
