142 The American Geologist. ^arch, 1904. 
ogists ^vishing to conform their practice to that of the Survey. 
One of its important functions is to guard against the du- 
plications of formation names. Some years ago the preparation 
of a card Hst of North American formation names was begun 
by Mr. F. B. Weeks. After its plan had been fully developed 
and a considerable body of literature covered, the work was 
hastened by the temporary detail of a number of geologists and 
paleontologists, and it has been continued to the present time. 
So much of it as represents the literature of North America 
previous to January i, 1901, has been printed in Bulletin No. 
191. Yearly installments are issued in connection with the an- 
nual "Bibliography and index of North American geology, 
etc.," and the card list keeps the record practically complete to 
date. The Survey is thus enabled to inform not only its members 
but all interested persons whether a name newly proposed for 
some stratigraphic division has or has not been preoccupied by 
other use in North America. No attempt has been made to 
cover the literature reilating to other continents, because inter- 
continental duplication can occasion no confusion, except pos- 
sibly in the case of major tenns used for purposes of correla- 
tion. 
The present writing is not a review, but rather a notice. As 
I am not only a member of the Geological Survey, but have 
been personally connected with much of the administrative 
work here outlined, it has seemed fitting that I present the facts 
without commendation or criticism ; and I have refrained also 
from adducing the considerations on which the determination 
of mooted points has been based. But there is a single factor 
in the Survey's point of view which it is perhaps well to state. 
In all the various discussions as to choice of names and the de- 
termination of principles by which to regulate such choice, the 
primary consideration has been the convenience of the geologic 
public, and no account has been taken of the personal factor. 
Where priority has been the criterion of selection it has been 
used because it affords a rule of simple application, and not 
because the authors of names are conceived to have "rights" in 
the matter. For myself, I share the view of Darwin, that the 
accentuation of personal credit for the giving of names is the 
bane of systematic terminology in biolog}-, and believe that it 
should be scrupulously avoided in geology. 
