334 Correspondence . 
given in the otiier cases are properlj cited and in strict conformity with 
commonly accepted rules of nomenclature. This will appear from the 
following facts: The first, third and sixth of these specific names appear 
in Mr. U. P. James' CataJague of the Fossils of the Cincinnati groups pub- 
lished in 1871. Being unaccompanied by either figures or description, it 
is evident that the species must be considered as nnpuhlished. The rules 
are very clear upon this point — "A species announced in a publication 
but without any description cannot be considered as published. "' In vol. 
ii of the Ohio Pal., Dr. Nicholson both describes and illustrates these 
species, but credits Mr. James with the names. Now, this being the first 
proper publication of the species their date is necessarily the same as 
that of the volume, and, as they are there described by Nicholson and 
not by James, they are established and stand upon the anthority of the 
forme7\ despite the fact that injudicious sentiment on the part of Dr. 
Nicholson led him to credit them to Mr. James. Had the former quoted 
the latter's descriptions of the species the cases would have been different ; 
— but he did not. Furthermore, we have no absolute certainty that the 
species so named by Dr. Nicholson are identical with those to which Mr. 
James applied the name in 1871, since the latter has not yet published de- 
scriptions of his species. 
In nomenclature, which can only be made uniform by strict adherence 
to established principles, sentiment of the kind mentioned should stand 
aside, since it almost invariablj- breeds confusion. Viewing the matter 
from another point we can readily imagine cases where an injustice may 
be perpetrated upon the author of a manuscript name. No responsibility 
rests with him till he has perfected his claim to the name by giving it 
adequate publication. Before he has done so, however, some other author 
may apply his name to a form perhaps quite distinct from the one he in- 
tended to give it to. In this case the name would have to stand upon the 
authority of the second author for the species to which he applied 
it, while the first claimant would not only be forced to select a new name 
for his species, but would stand credited with another, the very existence 
of which he may not have suspected before. Again the author of a 
manuscript name might upon subsequent investigation learn that the 
form he intended to describe under it was really not sufficiently distinct 
from previously published species to justify separation. In the mean- 
time, another avithor, not so well informed, may have published a de- 
scription of the form and given the original author as authority for the 
name. 
We might go on at length but the point seems so obvious that what 
has been said alreadv appears superfluous. 
As regards the fourth name, B. dclicatula, the complainant must be in 
error. We cannot find that Mr. James e^'er described this species or 
even proposed the name. 
1 Report to A. A. A. S. on Nomenclature in Zoology and Botany, p. 35 
(Dall). 
