21 
as Pyrosoma , 1893: this name, however, had been used by Peron in 
1804 for an entirely different group of animals, hence it was not avail- 
able as name for the Texas fever organism. Wandolleck (1895), on 
this account, proposed Apiosoma, to replace Pyrosoma , 1893; this name 
also was preoccupied, in 1885, for a genus of ciliated protozoa: Patton 
(1895) proposed Piroplasma as a substitute for Pyrosoma , 1893. The 
point is advanced by some authors that Pirojalasma should be attributed 
to Smith & Kilborne instead of to Patton, as it was Smith & Kilborne, 
instead of Patton, who described the parasite. 
This argument does not appeal to zoologists. Our position is that 
Smith & Kilborne are responsible for Pyrosoma , 1893, but not for 
Apiosoma , 1895, or Pirojjlasma , 1895, and an author should be quoted 
only for a name for which he is responsible. The act of naming an 
animal is not identical with the act of describing an animal. IV e 
therefore quote Smith & Kilborne for the acts for which they are 
responsible, but we do not quote them as authority for acts for which 
they are not responsible. If the policy were adopted that the person 
who describes an animal should be quoted in connection with all the 
names that have been applied to it, we would be led to the peculiar posi- 
tion of attributing 110 or more names to Goeze in connection with the 
parasite of hydatid disease, although most of these names were not 
published until years after Goeze's death: further, such quotation 
might entirely misrepresent an author's views. Zoologists are held 
responsible for the many typographical errors and variations in spell- 
ing of technical names, even when — as is very frequently the case — 
these errors are due entirely to the printer or to an editor who fol- 
lows some special rules of editing: this responsibility we bear with 
equanimity, irritating though these errors may be, but to assume 
responsibility for a dozen or a score of names which we never even 
thought of is a position which no zoologist cares to defend. 
This point of view lays stress upon holding an author responsible 
for the names he publishes, rather than upon “giving him credit" for 
these names. 
The chief idea we have in citing the author of a name is to aid in 
tracing it. If now we cited Smith & Kilborne. instead of Wandol- 
leek, as author of Apiosoma , or instead of Patton as author of Piro- 
plasma , we might lead our colleagues to search long in writings of 
Smith & Kilborne for a name which they perhaps never used even in 
correspondence. 
Art. 22. If it is desired to cite the author's name, this should follow 
the scientific name without interposition of any mark of punctuation: 
if other citations are desirable (date, sp. n., emend ., sensu strict o^ etc.), 
these follow after the author's name, but are separated from it by a 
comma or by parentheses. Examples: Primates Linne. 1758, or Pri- 
mates Linne (1758). 
