48 
ORIGINAL ARTICLES. 
present year, anotlier paper appeared in the same periodical, entitled, 
‘ On a fossil Elephant from Texas ( E . Texianus ),’ by Mr. Blake, who 
now stands sponsor for that specific designation himself, E. Columbi 
being quoted as a synonym.* It is a nice point to decide to whom 
the credit of the new name should be awarded. Professor Owen, at 
first produces it as his own, and then, after a long interval, assigns it 
to Mr. Blake: while conversely, the latter, in the first instance, un¬ 
guardedly attributes it to Professor Owen, and then takes it to him¬ 
self. There is jactitation of the name between the two naturalists, 
with hesitation and self-denial on both sides; but it is clear that it 
is a joint production ; and there is a consistent harmony of ideas and 
expression in their reasoning regarding the succulent food of the 
fossil species. Indeed, the only difference which I can detect, is, 
that Professor Owen introduces the name with a small initial, and 
Mr. Blake with a capital; by the canons of nomenclature the younger 
naturalist has the advantage of his senior. But the usage of science 
does not countenance such accommodating arrangements, when the 
result is to prejudice a prior right. 
Let us now see what intrinsic claims the Elephas Texianus of 
Messrs. Owen and Blake has upon the recognition of paleontologists, 
Mr. Blake being their exponent;— 
“ As the British Association, in their rules for Zoological Nomen- 
“ clature, have authoritatively sanctioned the principle that names 
“ not clearly defined, and likely to propagate important errors, may 
“ be changed, and as the name of JE. Columbi lays itself open to the 
“ grave charge, that it is not clear, whether it is named in honour of 
“ Columbus, or because it is found in Columbia (Venezuela y Nueva 
“ Granada), I trust that this name will not be accepted. That of 
“ E. Texianus , founded upon a yet unimpeached geographical dis- 
“ tinction, if it has not the advantage of published priority, yet gives 
“ a more lucid idea of the nature of the species which it indicates. 
“ The figure by Mr. Mackie gives a better idea of its appearance 
“ than any mere verbal description. I however define it as Elephas 
“ Texianus, dentium molarium (M. 6 .) Colliculi undulati , magis 
“ remoti quam in E. Indico. Its association with E. Indicus and 
“ Armeniacus , by Dr. Ealconer, seems warranted by its legitimate 
“ affinities.” (Op. cit. p. 58.) 
In reply to the first point, the author must permit me to remark 
that the supposed ‘important error ’ and 4 grave charge’ are only 
the results of imperfect knowledge and inexperience. The derivation 
of E. Columbi is so obvious, that nothing I can say could make it 
plainer. No educated naturalist could apply the term to the 
geographical region of Columbia, without giving it an adjective form, 
or supplementing the last vowel with an important terminal diphthong, 
the requirements of the case being inexorable. Putting aside the 
fact that Columbia was nowhere in question as a habitat of the 
* Op. cit. 1862. Vol. v. p. 57. 
