Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

President then proceeded to read his Anniversary Address, in which he discussed the bearings upon theoretical Geology of the results obtained by the Royal Commision on Water-Supply and the Royal Coal Commission. The Address was prefaced by biographical notices of deceased Fellows, including Sir Roderick I. Murchison, Mr. William Lonsdale, Sir Thomas Acland, Sir John Herschel, Mr. George Grote, Mr. Robert Chambers, and M. Lartet. The ballot for the Council and Officers was taken, and the following were duly elected for the ensuing year :-President -The Duke of Argyll, K.T., F.R.S. Vice-Presidents-Prof. P. Martin Duncan, F.R.S., Prof. A. C. Ramsay, F.R.S., Warington W. Smyth, F.R.S., Prof. John Morris. Secretaries-John Evans, F.R.S., David Forbes, F.R.S. Foreign Secretary, Prof. T. D. Ansted, F.R.S. Treasurer-J. Gwyn Jeffreys, F.R.S. CouncilProf. T. D. Ansted, F.R.S., the Duke of Argyll, F.R.S., W. Carruthers, F.R.S., W. Boyd Dawkins, F.R.S., Prof. P. Martin Duncan, F.R.S., R. Etheridge, F.R.S., John Evans, F.R.S., Jas. Fergusson, F.R.S., J. Wickham Flower, David Forbes, F.R.S., Capt. Douglass Galton, C.B.,F, R.S., Rev. John Gunn, M.A., J. Whitaker Hulke, F.R.S., J. Gwyn Jeffreys, F.R.S., Sir Chas. Lyell, Bart, F.R.S., C. J. Meyer, Prof. John Morris, Joseph Prestwich, F.R.S., Prof. A. C. Ramsay, F.R.S., R. H. Scott, F. R.S., W. W. Smyth, F.R.S., Prof. J. Tennant, Henry Woodward. "Nature," 29th Feb. 1872.

[ocr errors]

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON OBOLELLINA, &c.-Since the sheet containing my remarks on this genus was printed I have received a letter in which it is stated that Prof. Hall says his (C paper was in reality printed in March, 1871, and that he received from twenty-five to thirty copies, from the printer, at that time.""That he distributed these copies to some learned societies and individuals, having reserved three copies only, and that he sent one to the Geological Society of London, and to other parties whose names he can produce." I do not admit the whole of this statement. I have made extensive enquiries, among the most active and best geologists and naturalists in the United Statesmen who keep themselves fully informed, as to all books and papers on geology and paleontology published in the country. With a single exception not one of them ever saw, or even heard of the paper until I wrote to them about it. One gentleman, only, sent me a copy on the 12th Feb., 1872, but he did not

state when he received it, perhaps, becanse he did not wish to interfere in the matter. It was probably sent to him after Prof. Hall had seen my paper. The general opinion is that it was not circulated in the United States at all. There is some evidence, of a circumstantial character, to show that the two copies sent to England in September were printed after the month of July with important alterations. The principal objects of requiring a Naturalist to publish, are that others may obtain notice of what species or genera have been named and described; and, also, to afford the public a means of deciding questions of priority without depending upon the word of the author, who is always an interested party. Private distribution is not sufficient for either of these purposes. In this instance all of the six genera, noticed in Prof. Hall's pamphlet, might have been described and published, by as many different authors in the United States in perfect good faith, and without the least suspicion that they had been previously named by any one. Indeed, as he was aware that several were working at the same group, he seems to have concealed his pamphlet from them in order to give them annoyHow otherwise can we account for the fact, that no copies were sent either to the Smithsonian Institution or to the Canadian Survey?

ance.

I am informed that Prof. Hall's genera are to be sustained by two distinguished authors in England. One of them having received a copy of the paper in October, 1871, and knowing that another copy had been sent to the Geological Society of London, about the same time, neither can realize that it was not published. But let us place them in Prof. Hall's position. Suppose that the paper on which they are now engaged relates to a peculiar group of Wenlock fossils. They borrow specimens from the Geological Survey, and are notified by the Director that the paleontologist of the Survey is at work on the same group. Instead of publishing their paper in the Journal of the Geological Society, or in any other scientific journal, they resort to the following extraordinary proceeding. They prepare an abstract of five pages. They send no copies to the Survey, to the Geological Society, to the Royal Society or to any other learned institution in England. They conceal it from the English scientific public altogether. About six months afterwards they send one copy privately to a friend in Russia, and one to the Mineralogical Society there. In consequence of this course, for ten months

afterwards not one single member of the Geological Survey, or of the Geological Society, ever hears of the existence of their pamphlet. In the meantime the palaeontologist of the British Survey publishes his genus openly and fairly, in the Journal of the Geological Society. Several weeks afterwards he hears from Russia, that it had been previously published in London by the very two gentlemen to whom he had lent the specimens. I cannot believe that British Naturalists in general would consider it right to suppress his work.

I am informed also that Prof. Hall says I have violated the agreement relating to New York fossils, by publishing species found in the United States. This is simply a misrepresentation of the statement of the case. The different Surveys in the United States are quite independant of each other. The Director of any Survey can consult any paleontologist he thinks proper. I have never described a single fossil from any one of the States where Prof. Hall was, at the time, in any way employed. But I have examined a number of species for those Surveys with which he has no connection.

In one of the letters I have received, it is stated with reference to publication, that "No determined rules or laws have been hitherto settled or followed." With the highest respect for the author of this opinion, I cannot agree with him. There are laws which result from the very nature of the circumstances to which they relate. These laws exist perpetually, although not established by legislative enactment, and although they may be disregarded and transgressed by any number of persons. The law of publication is one of these. Every true naturalist feels that such a law does exist, and that it is his duty to observe it. We can 'scarcely imagine a reason for its non-observance. The loss by fire, urged in this case, is surely not a sufficient excuse, because any scientific journal on the continent would have re-published the pamphlet for Prof. Hall, free of charge. On the other hand, there can be no law in favor of private distribution, for the simple reason that it affords so many facilities for the performance of unfair transactions. If distributed so widely that the requirements of science are satisfied, a book becomes of authority, but this has not been done in the case of Prof. Hall's pamphlet. On the contrary, he seems to have shunned publicity. I am well aware that the law of publication is not always followed. All that I contend for is, that owing to the extraordinary circumstances of the instance under discussion, it should be strictly adhered to.

Waldheimia septigera and Terebratella septata, identical.— TO THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN NATURALIST.-Sir,-Having in the course of a too short visit to North America been honored by remarkable kindness and attention on the part of my brother naturalists in this great hemisphere, I am rather disappointed at seeing in your excellent periodical a notice of the Report submitted to the Royal Society of London by my colleagues and myself, on the deep-sea exploration of parts of the North Atlantic, in H. M. S. "Porcupine," during the summer of 1869. The writer of that notice, Mr. W. H. Dall, criticises in what I cannot help considering over severe terms my views "in regard of the specific and generic limits of animals;" and he gives as an instance," Waldheimia septigera" and "Terebratella septata," which he states belong to different genera, although I have included both under the same specific name. I do not agree with Mr. Dall in his statement. Having had opportunities of examining the types or original specimens of Terebratula septigera (Lovén) at Stockholm, and of Terebratula septata (Philippi) at Berlin, and having carefully compared these specimens with the published descriptions and figures, I am convinced that both be long not only to the same genus but to the same species. What seems to have been in the mind of Mr. Dall when he penned his hasty critique was that Professor Seguenza of Messina had referred a species of Terebratella from the Sicilian tertiaries to Philippi's species and a species of Terebratula found in the same formation to Lovén's species. The former may be the Terebra tella Marice of Mr. Arthur Adams from the Japanese seas; the latter I have ascertained to be rather widely distributed in the North Atlantic.

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your very obedient servant,

Montreal, 6th October, 1871.

Püblished April, 1872.

J. GWYN JEFFREYS.

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »