298 The American Geologist. November, 1893 
This liist objection applies with c< j na 1 force t<> some of the 
terms proposed by Buckman and Bather. These gentlemen 
were hampered by the desire to perpetuate the older terms 
now in use in this country and Tor which 1 alone am unluck- 
ily responsible. This is also my own condition, and although 
J would willingly now suggest an entirely new method. 1 find 
after having framed and tested a new one. that it is better no1 
to interfere any farther than is absolutely necessary with the 
nomenclature of L888. 
The table printed below, Table II, therefore, is made up of 
;i set of terms which are substantially the same as those sug- 
gested by Buckman and Bather, except in the use of nepionic, 
and in it I have also followed a suggestion kindly -tut me in 
a letter by Mr. Buckman. in adopting the prefixes "ana," 
"meta," and "para" for the designation of the substages of 
development. This has the great advantage of adding to the 
means of expressing observations accurately, quite as well as 
the use of an entirely distinct word ami at the same time pre- 
serving- in each term a direct reference to the period to which 
it belongs. Thus one can speak of the metanepionic or ana- 
neanie substage without referring to the stage in which they 
occur, and yet the reader will at once recognize to what stage 
the substage mentioned is to be referred. 
Recent researches have, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated 
that all stages of development from 2-4 inclusive, like tin 
embryonic stage 1. and the senile stage 5. will have to be 
subdivided in studying many groups. These subdivisions are 
also relatively important and their differences are often well 
defined. 
I now propose the following nomenclature which does, it is 
hoped, fuller justice to every stage.* 
*It is my grateful duty to add that I have had the unremitting help 
of Dr. C. E. Beecher, of New Haven, and have consulted with Dr. Jack- 
son, of Cambridge, and Mr. Clarke, of Albany, and also with Mr. Buck- 
man, and I wish to express to these gentlemen my indebtedness for 
suggestions and advice of essential importance. Except in the reten- 
tion of one term, "nepionic," the nomenclature is more theirs than 
mine. I also desire to thank Prof. Reynolds of JSew Haven, and Prof. 
William Goodwin, of Cambridge, for the earnest help they contributed 
to the formation of a table of terms which for reasons given above was 
not used, as well as for advice which influenced the framing of the one 
finally adopted. 
