I place this species doubtfully in this genus, because there is in the interior of the dorsal valve, a distinct muscular pit about one line in front of the beak, which does not occur in either of the other two species. In one well preserved specimen this scar is distinctly seen to be divided into two, by a longitudinal ridge. It may be that it represents the small anterior scar (c. fig. 2,) which is certainly variable in form and perhaps, also, in position. In O. Canadensis, for instance, the scar, c, is sometimes a distinct ovate pit, as shown in fig. 2, entirely separated from the two larger scars, bb. In others all three are confluent, or at least in contact, while in one specimen, c, is represented by two elongated grooves, separated by a rounded ridge, extending backwards between, lb. Some of the figures of the English species O. Davidsoni, seem to show that a pit, like that of O. magnifica, occurs in one of the valves of that species.

O. magnifica occurs in the Black River formation, along with O. Canadensis.

A QUESTION OF PRIORITY.

About three weeks after the above genus was published, I received a letter from Thos. Davidson, Esqr., F.R.S. Brighton, England, informing me that it had been previously named, by Prof. Hall in a pamphlet of 5 pages, dated March, 1871. On this subject I beg to make a few remarks.

When I was appointed to the office I now hold, in 1856, Prof. Hall was engaged on his 3rd vol, Pal. N.Y., which relates altogether to the Upper Silurian fossils of the State of New York. Sir W. E. Logan gave me to understand that I was not to describe any Upper Silurian fossils until Prof. Hall should have completed his volume. It was also understood, that I should not describe any species which might occur in New York and not in Canada. To do so was thought to be in the highest degree discourteous and un fair. Species that were found in Canada I could describe, although they might be known to occur in New York also. I have never once transgressed these rules for sixteen years. I have compared a number of collections for parties living in New York but have always declined to describe new species, although frequently urged to do so. There is a person at this present time at work on N. Y. fossils, and I have declined to give him any assistance.

It appears that many years ago, Prof. Hall obtained from Galt, a single specimen of the ventral valve of O. Galtensis. This spe- :

cies does not occur at all in New York. In the beginning of 1871, Prof. Hall applied to Mr. Selwyn for the loan of the original specimens of Trimerella grandis, stating that he wanted them to elucidate some points in the structure of his Obolus Conradi. I consented to the loan of them, and Prof. Hall was informed by Mr. Selwyn that the genus was then under investigation by Mr. Davidson, Mr. Dall and myself. Shortly afterwards he applied for speci mens of Kutorgina and O. Canadensis. I declined to lend the latter as I was then using it. In reply he intimated that he had no desire to take any advantage of me, but only to fortify his own position. It turns out, however, that he was then actually working at O. Galtensis, intending to make a new genus on a Canadian specimen. He did not inform Mr. Selwyn of this fact. Ten months afterwards, I heard from Mr. Davidson that Prof. Hall had proposed a new genus Rhynobolus, on the Canadian specimen before mentioned, and it then became apparent why he wished to borrow O. Canadensis. A question now arises, whether or not. his pamphlet was regularly published, previously to the 29th Dec. 1871, the date of the publication of my genus.

I have made extensive enquiries in the United States and Canada, among those who would have been the first to have received it, had it been regularly published, and cannot find one who had ever seen it previously to the 29th December, 1871. I have heard from the Directors of six Geological Surveys, from the Smithsonian Institution, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the New York Lyceum of Natural History, the Boston Natural History Society, McGill College and the Nat. Hist. Soc. of Montreal, besides a number of geologists and professors in colleges where geology is taught. The general opinion is that it was not published in the United States at all.

Then as to foreign countries, the only copy I have any certain account of, is the one sent to Mr. Davidson. Another is noticed in the Journal of the Geological Society for February, 1872, but the exact date of its reception is not mentioned. The case stands

thus.

It is admitted by all that the only test of priority is publication. By this term we must understand the placing of a book or pamphlet on sale, so that it may be accessible to the public by way of purchase.

On the other hand, when an author only gives away several copies of his work to his private friends, this is not publication,

but private distribution.

Should he even send one to a learned

society, whose library is private, it would still not be publication. The work would not be accessible to the public.

My genus was openly and fairly published, on the 29th Dec., 1871, in a scientific journal of good standing, and at all times. obtainable by purchase.

Prof. Hall's pamphlet was not published, but only privately distributed to a very few parties.

Although the law (that publication in the true sense of the term is the only test of priority,) should, in general, be rigidly enforced, yet in peculiar cases it admits of a considerable amount of flexibility. It should not always be carried out with a strong hand. Circumstances may render it necessary, in order to do justice, that it should be very strictly adhered to as against one of the parties, and more leniently as regards the other. When one of the disputants has proceeded in an irregular manner; has not published his paper in the ordinary way, in a scientific journal or book obtainable by purchase; and when, in consequence of such irregularity, the difficulty to be settled has arisen, he is to blame, and the law should be strictly enforced. If Prof. Hall had brought out his descriptions of Rhynobolus and Dinobolus, in any of the scientific journals of this continent, in March, 1871, I would almost certainly have seen it before the month of December, and would not have published my genus. This unfortunate collision would not then have occurred. But instead of following the regular mode of publication he resorted to private distribution, on a most limited scale; not in America but in England. In consequence of this I knew nothing of his genera, until I was informed of them by Mr. Davidson, in a letter which only reached me on the 17th of Jan., 1872, three weeks after my paper was published. It is not, therefore, my fault but his, that a controversy has arisen. Then as regards the Canadian specimen of O. Galtensis, he should, before he instituted a genus upon it, have given Mr. Selwyn notice; but instead of this, although he was informed that I was working at the group of fossils to which it belongs, he said nothing about it. It is not my fault that he concealed this from us. If the species occurred in New-York, as well as in Canada, he would not have been under any obligation to give notice, but as it does not occur in that State the case is quite different. It is said that shortly after his paper was printed a part of the edition was destroyed by fire. That is his mis

fortune, not mine. He should have had it immediately reprinted. I am informed that it could have been done in less than half a day, and at an expense of only four dollars. Surely the rich State of New York could have afforded that amount. A great deal more might be said upon this subject, but the above is quite sufficient to show that it is not my fault that this difficulty has arisen.

In this case I do not desire that the law of publication should be harshly administered, but I insist that the circumstances are such that it should be strictly carried out. Prof. Hall's pamphlet was not regularly published, according to the strict meaning of the law, and as it is altogether his fault, and not mine, the consequences should fall upon him and not upon me. In the common law, when a loss has accrued, which must be sustained by one out of two individuals, it falls upon the one by whose misconduct or neglect of duty it has been occasioned. The same rule holds good in scientific matters, as well as in the ordinary. affairs of every-day life. I bestowed a great deal of investigation. on my genus, and no doubt Prof. Hall did the same upon his. As matters have turned out, either his work or mine must be lost. On whom must the loss fall? On the party who is to blame, or or on the party who is not to blame? I do not ask to have the law stretched or executed leniently in my favor. I require no such extension in order to obtain justice. I only desire that it should be strictly adhered to, and not distorted in order to favour the party who has been the cause of all this difficulty.

METEOROLOGICAL

RESULTS FOR MONTREAL

FOR THE YEAR 1871.

BY CHARLES SMALLWOOD, M.D., LL.D., D.C.L.,

Professor of Meteorology in the University McGill College, Montreal.

The following observations extend over the past year, 1871, and are reduced from the records of the Montreal Observatory, Lat. 45° 36m 17.41s Long. 4h 54m 17s west of Greenwich. The cisterns of the Barometer are 182 feet above mean sea level. The whole of the readings are corrected for any instrumental errors, and the observations of the Barometer are corrected and reduced to 32° F.

Atmospheric pressure.-The highest reading of the Barometer occurred at 10h 30m p.m., on the 25th day of January, and indicated 30,985 inches; the lowest reading was at 2h 25m p.m., on the 18th day of February, and was 29,050 inches, giving a range during the year of 1.935 inches.

The following table has been compiled to show the highest and lowest readings, also the monthly mean and monthly range in inches and decimals of an inch:

Temperature of the Air F.-The highest reading of the Thermometer during the year was on the 13th July and was 95o. The lowest was on the 5th February and was 28° (below zero), giving a yearly range or climatic difference of 123°. The mean temperature for the year was 44.53, which is 2.23 degrees higher than the Isothem for Montreal deduced from observations extending over a long series of years.

The first frost of autumn occurred on the 8th September.