This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 17 December 2014, At: 09:51Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals and Magazine ofNatural History: Series10Publication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnah16

XXXVIII.—A vote onsome EchinodermnamesTh. MortensenPublished online: 26 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Th. Mortensen (1932) XXXVIII.—A vote on someEchinoderm names, Annals and Magazine of Natural History: Series 10,10:58, 345-368, DOI: 10.1080/00222933208673583

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222933208673583

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not

be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. 5{ortensen on some E c h & o d e r m Names. 345

XXXVII I . - -A Vote on some Ech inoderm N a m e s . By TH. MO~TE~SE~.

ISr my note " On Transitional ]Names " (X e CongrSs International de Zoologic, Budapest, 1927, p. 1565) I made the proposal of having appointed subcommittees on the various larger groups of animals " to give within a year from now a list of the names which should be codified in the sense generally used--giving then the committee (viz., the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) a year or a little more for a formal decision, we could have the lists of these nomina conservanda ready before the next Congress."

The time allotted to the Section on nomenclature at the Congress in Budapest being wholly occupied by discussions on another subject, I was prevented from reading my said paper there , and it could only be published in the Report of the Congress. Accordingly, my proposal of the subcommittees could not be carried out then, but had to be postponed till the next Congress, in Padova, 1930. I there repeated my proposal. I t was treated rather peremptorily, with the only result that I was asked to form a subcommission for the Echinoderm names. Although I had the impression--perhaps I was wrong-- that i t was no~ meant too seriously from the side of the Com- mission, I thought that I would t ry to do my best to show how the matter could be done, in the hope that the example might perhaps be followed within other groups, where good, Ml-known, and everywhere used names are in danger of being changed for more or less unknown names on account of the priority rule.

The question was first whom I should ask to enter into a subcommittee on Echinoderm names with me, and here I met the first difficulty. I t was perfectly evident that Bather, H. L. Clark, DOderlein, and Koehler

s h o u l d be asked ; but it was equally evident that A. H. Clark, W. K. Fisher, and Jackson had also to be asked, and thus the subcommittee Was already so large tha t it might perhaps be felt a bit offending by all the other workers on Echinoderms who were not asked. Therefore, I gave up the idea of a " subcommittee," and instead undertook to get a general vote among workers on Echinoderms on the names discussed, viz., among those who are

A n n . & May. N. t l i s t . Set. 10. Vol. x. 2[~

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

346 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some E c h i n o d e r m IVames.

working on systematics. It would have been altogether too much trouble to ask also the numerous workers in physiology, experimental embryology, etc., for their vote, and also most of them would probably not feel competent to vote on the names in question. Even within the group of workers in systematics of Echinoderms I have been unable to ask everybody. I can only ask all those to whom I have not submitted the matter to forgive me, as I forgive those who did not reply to my application.

It was done in this way, that a typewritten copy of my discussion of the various names which were chosen for this first trial was sent to the various echinologist col- leagues, accompanied by a letter from me giving the meaning of the whole thing and asking for their signature under each name separately, or, in case they did not agree, for a brief statement of the reasons for not agreeing. It was promised that by an eventual publication such reasons for not agreeing should be faithfully stated.

The following colleagues have sent me their votes :--

F. A. BATttEI~, British Museum, London. A. G. B~IG~TON, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge. A. H. CLA~K, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. H. L. CLA~K, Museum of Comp. Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. J. COTTIaEAU, Museum d'hist, na~., Paris. E. D. CU~RIE, Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. E. D~ICHMANN, Museum of Comp. Zoology, Cambridge,

Mass, A. M. DIAKo~ov, Zoological Museum, Leningrad. L. D6DEI~LEIN, Munich. Sv. EKMAlV, Zoological Institute, Uppsala. A. FAAS, Geological Committee, Leningrad. D. M. FEDOTOV, Zoological Laboratory, Leningrad. W. K. FISHER, Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove,

California. T. GIsL~N, Zoological Institute, Uppsala. SEITA~O GOTO, Tokio. J. W. G~Go~Y, Geological Department, University,

Glasgow. J. A. GRI~¢, Zoological Museum, Bergen. H. L. HAWKINS, Geological Department, University,

Reading. R. Hv.cK~]¢, Geological Museum, Leningrad. S. H~D~NG, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm 2¢ames. 34~7

E. HI~ROUARD, Laboratoire de Zoologic, La Sorbonne, Paris.

N. v. HOFSTE~, Zoological Institute, Uppsala. R. T. JACKSOn, Museum of Comp. Zoology, Cambridge,

Mass. r . KLII~GHARDT, Museum f. Naturkunde, Berlin. J. LAMBEgT, Paris. I. LIEBERKIND, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen. AuG. NoBg~, Zoological Institute, Porto, Portugal. H. 0~smMA, Zoological Laboratory, Fukuoka, Japan. A, ~AI~NII~IG, Zoological Museum, Hamburg. A. REIC~E~SPE~aE~, Zoological Institute, Bonn. 1. P. J. RAvN, Pal~eontological Department, University,

Copenhagen. W. E. SC~MIDT, Preussische Geolog. Landesanstalt,

Berlin. W_. K. SPEnCEr, Ipswich, England. G. STErA~INI, Geological Institute, Pisa. DoM AU~LIEN VALETTE, Saint-L6ger-Vauban, France. C. VANEY, Laboratoire de Zoologic, Lyon. J. WA~E~, Geological Institute, Bonn. N. ¥~KOVLEV, Geological Committee, Leningrad.

One great authority on Echinoderms would most certainly have signed all the following proposals, namely R. Koehler, Lyon, but he died immediately before I was about to send him the articles for signing *.

I t should be emphasized that I am alone responsible for the literary facts given under the various names here dealt with. I t could, of course, not be expected that the colleagues who were asked to give their opinion about these names should take the trouble to verify my state- ments.

There may be a good deal more Echinoderm names which it would be desirable to have made nomina con- servanda, b o t h generic and specific names. I have, however, thought it better to confine this first trial to the names here dealt with. I may recall in this connection the fact that two Echinoderm names have already been made nomina eonserv~nda, viz., Holothuria, the most important of all, I think, and Echinocyamus pusillus.

* In the meantime, before ~hc vo~o could be published, H6rouard also has died.

25~

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

348 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm. -Names.

To those who maintain that the law should be strictly obeyed in all cases I would beg to point out that the amendment that in certain eases names can be made nomina conservanda has the same validity in law as has the absolute priority rule itself--if not more. Both of them, the rule as well as the amendment, were duly sanctioned by International Zoological Congresses, the former rather nndeliberately without anybody having realised its consequences, the latter very deliberately after the most unfortunate consequences of the absolute priority had raised so strong an opposition against it that a remedy had to be adopted.

In civil life it happens over and over again that when a law is found to have unfortunate consequences n o t foreseen by the makers of the law, regulations are made to prevent such unfortunate consequences, and nobody ever denies the validity of such amendments. In the same way, the amendment of the priority rule that certain names may be made nomina conservanda in spite of the priority rule has undeniably as much validity as has the priority rule itself.

1. E~c~I~us C. F. Schulze.

Referring to the eloquent appeal in a circular letter from the late Frank Springer, of May 1st, 1909, and to the paper ".Some common Crinoid Names, and the Fix- ation of Nomenclatm'e " by F. A. Bather (Ann. & Mat. Nat. Hist. ser. 8, vol. iv. 1909, pp. 37-42), we strongly recommend the codification of the name Encrinus, familiar to both biologists, geologists, and paleontologists, thus : - -

Encrinus C. F. Schulze, with genotype Encrinus lilii- formis Lamarck.

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L. Clark, Co%reau,

Currie, Deichmann, Diakonov, Dt~derlein, Ekman, Fans, Fedotov, Fisher, Gisl6n, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Itecker, Heding, H6rouard, v. tIofsten, Jackson, Kling- hardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Noble, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, Reichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer, Ste~anini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

Lambert does not vote, saying that he has not sufficiently studied the question.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm 2~ames. 349

2. AI~C~;EOOIDARIS M'Coy.

Bather, in his paper " Echinocrinus versus Archceo- cidaris" (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. xx. 1907, pp. 452-456), has given a very clear and complete representation of the whole question regarding the name Archceocidaris, from which it is seen that, strictly speaking, the name Echinocrinus Agassiz has the priority, the name Archceocidaris M'Coy being a synonym thereof.

But it would be a most unfortunate thing from every point of v i ew to reject the highly appropriate name Archeeocidaris for the absolutely misleading name Echino- crinus; such a change would in no sense whatever be of any advantage to science, but would be sure to lead to great confusion. All the main authors dealing with this group of Echinoids have then-also used the name Archceocidaris, viz., Desor's 'Synopsis des Echinides fossiles ' ; Zittel's ' Pal~eontologie ' ; Jackson's ' Phy- logeny of Echini ' ; Lambert and Thi6ry's 'Essai de nomenclature raisom16e des Echinides ' ; Mortensen's ' Monograph of the Echinoidea.--I. Cidaroidea.'

We deem it necessary that the name Archcvocidaris M'Coy be declared a nomen conservandum. Genotype : Cidaris ~zrii Fleming.

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Cl~rk, H. L. Clark, Cottreau,

Currie, Deichmann, Diakonov, D0derlein, Ekman, Fans, Fedotov, Fisher, Gore, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Heeker, Heding, I-I6rouard, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lieberkind, 1V[ortensen, ~obre, Ohshima, Panning, l~eichensperger, l~avn, Schmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

Lambert states that in his opinion the name Archceo- cidaris M'Coy, " p e u t ~tre conserv4 sans violer la r~gle de priorit6."

Not signed by Gisldn and v. Hofsten, who express their fear that the consequences would be that too many names would have to be changed, because of their para- doxical meaning, quoting as an example Timorechinus Wanner, which on being recognized ~s a Crinoid was subsequently changed by Wanner into Timorocrinus.

I beg to remark to this that the trouble of having such names changed would be nothing in camparisoa with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

350 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoclerm _/Vames.

trouble t h a t they cause by their misleading character. I shall, e. g., not easily forget the trouble I felt on seeing in one of the great American Museums a splendid skeleton of a Basilosaurus, which seemed to me a most wonderful Saurian parallel to the Cetacean Zeuglodon, until I found that it was really a Zeuglodon. I t was originally described (after a pair of isolated vertebrae) as a Saurian--and thus, of course, this mammal must keep its first name, desig- nating it as a Saurian ! If the codifying of Archceocidaris could lead to the consequence of the name Zeuglodon being codified instead of Basilosaurus, I think that would be a very happy consequence.

3. LUIDIA Forbes.

The genus-name Luidia was established by Forbes in 1839 in Mem. Wernerian Soc. viii. p. 123, for a seastar which he named Luidia fraffilissima, which had, however, already been described by Philippi in 1837 (Archly f. Naturgesch. iii. p. 194) under the name of Asterias ciliaris, which thus becomes the type of the genus Luidia. The name Luidia has been unanimously adopted by all workers on Asteroids, and we have the name Luidiidm, Luidiinee, Luidiaster, Eoluidia, etc., and nobody has thought of changing these names.

However, according to the l~ules it ought to be changed, the article 27 b saying that " The law of priority obtains and consequently the oldest available name is retained-- when any stage in the life-history is named before the adult ."

In 1835 M. Sars, in his 'Beskrivelser og Iagttagelser over nogle mmrkelige eller nye i Hayer ved den Bergenske Kyst levende Dyr,' described (p. 37, Tab. 15, fig. 40 a~/), under the name of Bipinnaria asterigera, a pelagic organism, which he did not know to which class to refer, to the Acalephs or the Molluscs--rather to the former, he thought. Later on, in a paper "Ueber die Entwicklung der Seesterne" in Wiegmann's Archiv f. Naturgeschiehte, 1844, i. p. 176, Sars comes to the result that it is probably the larva of an Asterid, which is definitely ascertained by Koren and Danielsen in their paper "Observations sur la Bipinnaria asterigera," Ann. d. Sc. nat. ser. 3, vii. 1847, p. 347. But it was Ludwig (" Die im Mittelmeere vorkommenden Arten der Gattung Luidia," Sitzber.-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm Names. 351

Niederrhein. Ges. Natur. u. Heilkunde, Bonn, 1895; 'Die Seesterne dos Mittelmeeres,' 1897, p. 99) who proved that the Bipinnaria asterigera is the larva of Luidia sarsi. Thus, according to the Rules, Luidia is antedated by Bipinnaria, and should be changed accordingly.

I t is very unlikely that anybody would condescend to make this ridiculous change. We must necessarily have a separate name for this larval type of the Asteroids, as we have it for the other classes of Echinoderms (excepting the Crinoids, which, as far as known, have no special pelagic larval form). The name Bipinnaria has always been used for this larva, and is known as such by all biologists. But, since the strict application of the l~ule requires the change, it is necessary to have the name Luidia made a nomen eonservandnm, the name Bipin- naria being confined to designate the pelagic larval type of the Asteroidea.

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L. Clark, Cottreau,

Currie, Deichmann, Diakonov, DOderlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov, Fisher, Gisl6n, Gore, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Hecker, Heding, H6rouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Kling- hardt, Lambert, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, l%avn, l~eichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

4. ECHINOCYAMUS V. Phelsum, FIBULA~IA Lamarek).

The name Echinocyamus was given by Murk van Phelsum, 1774, in his 'Br ief ann Cornelius Nozeman, over de gewelwslekken of zee-egeln,' p. 131. He describes and figures no less than fourteen species, distinguished by so unessential characters that they may perhaps-- as maintained by Lamber t - - in reality be only one single species. The figures are exceedingly poor, but the two first columns of figures, particularly the second column, scarcely leave any doubt that they were of the fiat form, and the statement (p. 36) that some of them came from the Adriatic (the rest from America) indicates that in his species is included at least the common European Echinocya'mus pusillus. He gives no Latin names to his various species, only Dutch names : " Kriekepit," "Kers~ sepit," etc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

352 Dr. Th. Mortcnsen on some Echinoderm Names.

Leske, in his 'Addi tamenta ad I. Th. Kleinii natur. disp. Echinodermatum' (1778, p. 213), simply gives Latin species-names to the fourteen " species," trans- lating v. Phelsum's Dutch names into Latin. Accordingly, the same applies to Leske's Echinocyamus-speeies as to v. Phelsum's : that we can say with certainty about them that the Adriatic species, Echinocyamus pusillus, is among them. Leske, however, has had specimens which he identifies with two of v. Phelsum's species, viz., craniolaris and angulosus. These very probably represent: the former the high, globose, the latter the low type.

Lamarck (Hist. nat. Animaux sails vertSbres, 1816, iii. p. 17) does not use the name Echinocyamus, but creates a new genus Fibularia, under which he has three species : Fibularia trigona, F. ovulum, and F. tarentina. The first of these has never been figured, and as there is no locality given, and the diagnosis is insufficient for deciding whether it was of the high or the depressed type, this species cannot be taken into consideration as type of the genus Fibularia. The second species, F. ovulum, is through the words " basi subangustata " in the diagnosis sufficiently characterized as being of the high type, which is in all later echinological literature (up to Lambert) designated as Fibularia, and this species accordingly becomes the type of the genus Fibularia. That Lamarck gives Norway ? as locality does not interfere with this result, no more than the fact that he quotes O. Fr. Mfiller's "Sloatagus pusil lus" as a doubtfnl synonym. As F. ovulum again appears to be the same as Leske's cranio- laris, the latter becomes the type of Fibularia.

Gray (' An Attempt to divide the Echinida, or Sea Eggs, into ~a tura l Families,' 1825, p. 428) makes Fibularia a synonym of Echinocyamus. Deslongchamps, in the ' Encyclop~die m~thodique,' Zoophytes, ft. 1825, p. 388, and Desmoulins (" I I P M~moire sur les Echinides," Aetes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, 1837, p. 82) accept only the name Fibularia.

The first to recognize that the high globose and the low flattened form represent two quite distinct generic types is L. Agassiz in his 'Monographie des Scutelles' (1841), who confines the name Echinocyamus to the low type with internal radiating walls with E. pusillus as the first species, the name ~ibularia being confined to the high type without internal radiating walls. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echi~wderm 2¢'ames. 353

genus Fibularia is otherwise not dealt with in this work. I t is not until 1846, in Agassiz and Desor's 'Catalogue Raisonn6 des Echinides,' pp. 140-142, that the two genera are put up with clear diagnoses, and the various species known till then rightly distributed among them. From then on there has been perfect unanimity in the eehin0- logical literature about the two genera, the species pusillus (or its synonym angulosus Leske) being regarded as the type of Echinocyamus, the species craniolaris Leske the type of Fibularia.

In 1891 Lambert, in his " Note sur le genre Echino- cyamus" (Bull. See. G6ol. France, s6r. 3, xix. p. 749), maintains that the figures illustrating v. Phelsum's book prove that his Echinocyamus was the high form, and accordingly he interchanges the names Echinocyamus and $'ibularia, using Echinocyamus for the high type, Fibularia for the low type, contrary to the hitherto unanimous use of these two names. The change thus introduced by Lambert was met with protest by Cotteau (in ' Pal6onto- logie Fran~aise, Terrain Tertiaire.--II. Eehinides,' 1894, p. 349) and de Loriol (' Notes pour servir ~ l'6tude des Echinodermes,' v. 1897, p. 8), further by Th. Mortensen ( " ' I n g o l f ' Echinoidea," ii. 1907, p. 38, and in a note " On some Points in the Nomenclature of Echinoids," Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 8, vol. v. 1910, p. 120). To the point emphasized both by Cotteau and Mortensen that, in view of the fact that van Phelsum's figures are altogether too bad for founding any definite conclusions upon and also his descriptions being quite insufficient, his statement that some of his specimens ca, me from the Adriatic must be decisive, proving that, whatever his various " species " were, at least the Adriatic form-~Echinocyamus pusillue must have been among them, Lambert (" Descriptions des Echinides fossiles des terrains mioc6niques de la Sardaigne," M6m. See. Pal. Suisse, xxxiv. 1907, p. 38) objects that v. Phelsum made an error in stating that his specimens came from the Adriatic, due probably to a change of labels in the Museum ofCramer, where v. Phelsum found his specimens. " On sMt d'ailleurs avee quelle facilit6 peuvent s'6garer des 6tiquettes vol~ntes." As definite proof that his interpretation of v. Phelsum's Echinocyamus, meaning the high globose form, is the right one , he reproduces, v. Phelsum's fig. 13, pl. ii. I t is beyond doubt that this figure seems t o represent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

354 Dr. Th. ]V[ortensen on some Evhinoderm 2tames.

a species of the high globose type. But the figures 11 and 12, showing the same species from above, would no less certainly be taken to represent the low flattened form--proof enough that the more difficult drawings of the test in side and end view have been too much for the abilities of the artist, so that no reliance whatever can be placed on these figures.

The five figures of the species "plompezaad " in van Phelsum's work, from which Lambert has reproduced the third figure are here reproduced, so that anybody can see the value of these figures. I t is very illustrating tha t exactly this same species, taken by Lambert as proving that the high globose type is meant by v. Phelsum, is described by v. Phelsum as " fere adplanata," and by Leske named Echinocyamus angulosus, which everybody agrees to be the same as Echinocyamus pusillus, the typical flattened form.

All the fourteen " species " of van Phelsum are figured in exactly the same way, and so exactly alike that nobody now would be able to see any specific differences in them.

The interchange of the two names Echinocyamus and Fibularia thus introduced by Lambert, and partly adopted by various workers on fossil Echinoids, has led to a most deplorable confusion. I t is impossible now to gather from the name whether the fiat or the high type is meant. We must strongly recommend that what- soever is meant by the figures of v. Phelsum--the two names are fixed according to unanimous use in works on recent Echinoids, and in all works on fossil Echinoids before Lambert, thus : --

Echinocyamus v. Phelsum, genotype Echinocyamus pusillus (0. Fr. Miiller).

Fibularia Lamarck, genotype Fibularia craniolaris (Leske).

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H, L. Clark, Cottreau,

Currie, I)eichmann, Diakonov, D(~derlein, Ekman, Faas,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm _Names. 355

Yedotov, Fisher, Gisl6n, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Hecker, Heding, H6rouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Kling- hardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, geiehensperger, Schmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

Lambert, alone of all, protests violently, giving a very lengthy argumentation, containing no new facts, only a restatement of what he has said previously, as set forth above. His main argument is that the figure quoted (No. 13 in the figures reproduced above) proves that v. Phelsum's species was the high globose form. That the two first figures as clearly represent the first form he does not consider. On my pointing this out to Lambert, he states in a letter to me that he finds the two first figures in the series to represent likewise the high globose form, not the flat European form.

5. PI-IYLLACANTt~US Brandt, STI~O:NGYLOCEI~ITROTUS Brandt.

In his 'Prodromus descriptionis animalium ab H. Mertensio in orbis terrarum eircumnavigatione observa- a to rum ' (1835) J. F. Brandt establishes the subgenera Phyllacanthus and Strongylocentrotus respectively under the genera Cidarites and Echinus, the former with the species dubia Brandt, the latter with the species chlorocentrotus Brandt, as the only species named and accordingly the genotypes. The two subgenera of Brandt were accepted by Agassiz in h is 'Revis ion of the Echini,' who referred to them, besides the two genotypes, a great number of species, which have later on been shown (Mortensen, "'Ingolf ' Echinoidea.--I.") to belong to several different genera. But the two names have constantly been used in echinological literature, and, particularly Strongylo- centrotus, are well-known names in biological literature in general.

In 1909 Lambert and Thi6ry, in their "Notes ~chino- logiques.--II. Sur les genres d'Echinides propos6s par Brandt en 1835" (Bull. Soe. Sci. nat. Haute-Marne, vi.), maintain that the two said names are simply synonyms respectively of Cidarites and Echinus, and proceed to make a lot of rearrangements of Echinoid nomenclature, the more extraordinary since, founding on their principle

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

356 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm dVames.

that classification of recent Eehini must be based solely on such characters as can be found also in the fossil forms, they quite ignore the results of studies on the microscopical characters of Echini.

I t is perhaps possible that, on a very strict interpre- tation, the two names were really meant only as synonyms of Cidarites and Echinus, but the two names were rightly established as generic names by Agassiz, and, as they have since then been generally adopted and are very generally known, it would be quite absurd now to drop them because of a very disputable interpretation of what was the original meaning of the author of these names.

We must therefore strongly recommend that the two names be codified thus : - -

Phyllacanthus Brandt, with genotype Phyllacanthus dubius Brandt.

Strongylocentrotus Brandt, with genotype Echinus chloro- centrotus Brandt. This species being simply a synonym of Echinus drb'bachiensis 0. Fr. Mtiller, the latter species eo ipso becomes the genotype.

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L. Clark, Cottreau,

Currie, Deichmann, Diakonov, Dhderlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov, Fisher, Gisl6n, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Heeker, Heding, H6rouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Kling- hardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Nobre, Ohslfima, Panning, ~avn, l~eichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wamler, Yakovlev.

Lambert states: "Bien que regrettable je reconnais que ce changement peut 6tre admis sans violer positivement la loi de priorit6."

6. SPATAN~VS (Klein) Gray, ECHINOCARDIIIM Gray, etc.

In the old literature (Klein, Leske, Lamarck) the name Spatangus is taken in a very wide sense, including forms now distributed in various families and orders. Lamarck, in his 'Syst~me des animaux sans vert~bres,' 1901, p. 348, names under the genus Spatangus only one species, Spatangus vulgaris, which, as seen from the figures to which he refers (Klein, viz., Leske, tab. 48, figs. 4, 5 ; Eneyclop. pl. 158, fig. 11; pl. 159, fig. 1), is the same as that which he names later on, 1816, in the 'Hist . nat. des

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm Names. 357

animaux sans vertgbres,' p. 30, S29atangus carinatus-- evidently forgetting that he did already in 1801 name it S. vulgaris. From the diagnosis of the genus and the " Nora," " On connolt beaucoup d'espgces darts l '6tat marin, et beaucoup d'autres darts l '6tat fossile, qui appartiennent & ce genre," it is evident that his genus Spatangus is meant to comprise all the Spatangoids known by that time. I~evertheless, as he names only one species, that one ought-- i t would seem--to have been made the type of the restricted genus Spatangus, which means again that the species now named Brissus carinatus ought, according to a strict interpretation of the Rule, to be the type of the genus Spatangus, and under the n~me of S. vulgaris Lamk., since the species, although figured by Leske, is not named by the latter author. This, however, has never been done by any author on Echinoids.

The first author really in modern sense is Gray, Echinid~e, or Sea Eggs, He has there established three genera Spatangus,

to establish a genus Spatangus in his 'A t t empt to divide the into Natural Families,' 1825. a family Spatangidse, with the

Echinocardium, and Brissus. Under the first of these is named as only species S. pur- ~oureus Leske, t. 43, ft. 3, 5, viz., figures of O. Fr. Miiller's Spatangus purpureus, ' Zoologia Danica,' Tab. vi. Thus the genus has been properly established, with its genotype, and it has been accepted unanimously in this sense in the whole of the echinological literature, and in zoological literature in general, until recently changed by Lambert.

In 1902 Lambert (" Description des Eehinides fossiles de la Province de Baroelone," M6m. Soc. G@ol. France, xxiv. p. 54) protests in a note against the correctness of Gray's decision, maintaining that, according to Klein's conception of the genus Spatangus, the type generally understood as ,gpalangus does not rightly belong there, and he tentatively proposes to name those forms Prospatangus. In Lambert and Thi4ry's ' Essai de nomenclature raisonn~e des Echinides,' p. 459, this name Prospatangus is then definitely introduced instead of the hitherto unanimous use of the name Spatangus, this latter name now being transferred to the species hitherto generally known as Schizaster canaliferus (Lamarek).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

358 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Ecl~inod~rrn Names.

There is no doubt that Gray, in giving O. Fr. Mtiller's Spatangus purpureus as the type (viz., the only named) species of the genus Spatangus, does not follow Klein, who lets his Spatangus comprise the species " insignem habentes lacunam in dorso . . . . sulcosque in vertice " (ed. 1778, p. 27). But Gray was the first post-Linnean author to establish the genus Spatangus properly, and then we cannot now overthrow the secular unanimous use of the name in this sense in order to re-establish the name in the sense of the pre-Linnean non-binominal author Klein, be his distinction of various genera of Echinoids ever so much beyond Linn~eus's confusion of all Eehinoids in the single genus Echinus. That Blainville, in 1827 (Dictionnaire d. Sciences nat. Tome 50, p. 92), has canali- fetus in his third group of the genus Spatangus cannot well, as seems to be the opinion of Lambert, do away with the fact of Gray having in 1925 made purpureus the type of the genus.

The species canaliferus Gray (op. cir. 1825) made the type of his genus Ova, thus it is inadmissible now to make it the type of Spatangus. The genus Ova has not been recognized until recently H. L. Clark (Hawaiian a. o. Pacific Echini, Echinoneidm . . . . . Spatangidse, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. xlvi. 1917, p. 192) revives it, restricting it to the species canaliferus, which, from a taxonomic point of view, is justifiable. The type of the genus Schizaster, established by L. Agassiz, 1836, in his " Pro- drome d'une 1?[onographie des Radiaires," M~m. Soe. Neuchhtel, i. p. 18, is the fossil (Tertiary) species studeri Agassiz. This is of the same type as the recent form lacunosus, which has always been designated as Schizaster, and even by Lambert and Thi~ry in their ' Essai de nomen- clature raisonn6e' is Mlowed to remain in the genus Schizaster (though erroneously referred to the subgenus Brisaster). Thus leaving canalifemts aside as the type of its own genus, Ova--there is no discrepancy about the genus Schizaster and the genotype, studeri Agassiz.

The genus Echinocardium * was established by Gray in his paper of 1825 (p. 430), with the species atropos Lamk. as the first numed, which ought, accordingly,

* T h e n a m e Echinocard,lum is f i r s t f o u n d in L e s k e ' s ' A d d i t a m e n t a , ' p . 73, as u t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e B e l g i a n " E g e l h a r t " u s e d b y v~i1 P h o l s u m .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mor~ensen on some Fc£inoclerm/Names. 359

to have been accepted as the type of the genus. L. Agassiz in his 'P rodromus ' does not accept the name Echino- cardium, but creates a new genus, Amphidetus, under which Echinocardiunt is mentioned as a synonym; the species (Spatangus) arcuarius Goldfuss is the first named, the species atropos Lamarck being transferred to his new genus ~%hizaster as the first species named, the second being S. studeri Agassiz. In Agassiz and Desor's 'Cata- logue raisonn6' the first species named under Amphi- detus is cordatus (Pennant). In Desor's 'Synopsis des Echinides fossiles,' p. 406, the genus Echinocardium is again taken up, with Amphidetus as a synonym, the species cordatum Pennant being the first named; the species atropos Lamk. had in t h e meantime been made the type of another genus, Moera, by Michelin (" Notice sur un nouveau genre £ 6tablir duns la famille des Spatan- goides sous le nora de Moera," Rev. et Magaz. de Zool. 1855, p. 245). This name was changed by A. Agassiz (' Revision of Echini,' 1872, p. 146) into Moira, the name Moera being preoccupied. Since then the genera Echino- cardium and Moira have been unanimously accepted in the sense adopted by Desor and Michelin, with the species cordatus and atropos respectively as the genotypes. Whether Echinocardium should, like the genus Ova, be confined to the species with the pores in the frontal ambulacrum in close double series, viz., cordatum (and australe, if the latter be maintained as a separate species) is a matter of no serious nomenclatorial consequence, the other species generally referred to Echinocardium would then have to be transferred t o the revived genus Aml~hidetus.

Under the genus Brissus, Gray names as first species ventricosus Leske (tab. 26, fig. A), the following being unicolor Leske, carinatus Leske, and columbaris Seba. The species ventricosa has, however, later on been trans- ferred to the genus Meoma, established by Gray, 1851, with the West Indian species grandis as the type ; the species unicolor is thus left as the type of the genus Briss~s, about which fact there is no disagreement among the various authors.

In view of the very great, almost inextricable con- fusion and endless discussions in which the strict appli- cation of the rule of priority within the group of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

360 Dr. Th. Mor~ensen on some Eeldnoderm Names.

Spatangoids will result, we must recommend these names being codified thus : - -

Spatangus Gray, with genotype S2atangus purpureus O. Fr. Mtiller.

Ova Gray, with genotype Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck. Schizaster Agassiz, with genotype Schizaster ~tuderi

Agassiz. Echinocardium Gray, with genotype Echinus cordatus

Pennant. Moira A. Agassiz , with genotypeS~atangus atro]9os

Lamarck. Brissus Gray, with genotype S]gatangus brissus var.

unicolor Leske.

Signed by : A. It. Clark, It. L. Clark, Cottreau, Currie, Deichmann,

Diakonov, D•derlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov, Fisher, Gisl6n, Gore, Gregory, Grieg, Hawkins, Hecker, tteding, H6rouard, v. Hofsten, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lieberkind, Mortensen, 1Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, Ravn, l~eichen- sperger, Schmidt, Spencer , Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, ¥akovlev.

Bather and Brighton do not vote on these names. Lambert votes "Non, ear e'est Klein et non Gray qui

a l e premier divis6 les Spatangues en plusieurs genres " - not considering that since Klein is pre-Linnean and non- binominal, he here goes against the l~ule, to which he otherwise adheres most strictly.

7. DIADEMA Gray.

The name Diadema was introduced by Sehynvoet, the anonymous editor of ' Thesaurus imaginum piscium testaceorum' (Leiden, 1711), which is nothing but a re- production of the plates of Rumphius's ' D'Amboinsche ]~ariteitkamer,' 1705. In the explanation of tab. xiv. letter B, he has : "Echinus qui dicitur Diadema turcarum Belg. Turksen Tulband."

Linnaeus (Syst. n a t . Bd. x. 1758) refers under his species Echinus diadema to this same figure in Rumphius. Leske (' Additamenta, ' p. 100) identifies the Echinometra setosa of Rumphius (tab. xiii. 5) with the Echinus diadema of Linnaeus, and, as he does not find the quoted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm 2Yames. 361

figure in Rumphius good enough, he reproduces " e x Deliciis n~turse a Muellero editis " two figures which very Clearly represent a Diadema with its spines and a denuded test of Diadema.

In the anonymous 'Museum Calonnianum,' 1797 (p. 64), the name .Diadema is used as a genus-name for Echinoids, but it is not possible to see which species should be regarded as the type of this genus. Lamarck (Anim. s. vertbbres, 1816, iii. p. 58) has under his genus " Cidarites " a group of species which he designates as " Les Diadbmes " ; it corresponds exactly to the family Diadematid~e as understood in modern science (excepting only the fossil species Cidarites crenularis-~HemiGidaris crenularis) ; but he does not use the Latin name Diadema. I t was Gray, in his at tempt to divide the Echinida into natural families (Ann. of Philosophy, xxvi. 1825, p. 426), who first directly established a genus Diadema, wi th D. setosa Leske, tab. 37, figs. 1-2, as the first species, and, accordingly, the genotype. Ever since that date the name Diadema has been in general use in this sense in echinological literature.

In 1912, however, ~ . T. Jackson in his " Phylogeny of the Echini " (Mere. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. vii. p. 27) pointed out that the name Diadema was used in 1817 by C. F. Schumacher (" Essai d 'un nouveau systbme des habitations des vers testac6s ") for a Cirripede, the Lepas diadema of Linnaeus. As, however, the name Coronula had already in 1815 been created for this species (Oken, Lehrbuch d. Naturgesch. i. sect. 1, p. 300), Schumacher's Diadema is a synonym of Coronula. The name Diadema was again in 1820 given by l~anzani to the same Cirripede, and the same name was applied by BoisduvaI (' Voyage de l'Astrolabe, Faune Entomologique.--I. L6pidoptbres,' 1832) to a Nymphalid butterfly, and by Pease (Amer. Journ. Conch. iv. 1868, p. 157) to a Polynesian land-shell.

The latter two names, of course, 4o not count at all, the name being already twice occupied, both for a Cirri- pede and for Echinoids. According to a strict appli- cation of the l~ules, the Cirripede name has priority over the Echinoid name, and, as a consequence hereof, Jackson (op. cit.) created a new name, Centrechinus, for the Echinoid. This leads to some very unhappy consequences. The name Diadema has been unanimously used for

Ann.-& Mag. IY. Hist. ~er. 10. Vol. x. 24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

362 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some )Ec ld ,wderm -Names.

designating these Echinoids for a whole century, the period in which scientific echino]ogy in modern sense was created, in works as : Agassiz and Desor's ' C~t~logue raisonn6 des Echinides' ; Desor's ' Synopsis des Echinides fossiles ' ; Agassiz's ' Revision of Echini,' "The ' Challenger' Ec}finoidea " ; Agassiz and H. L. Clark's ' Hawaiian a. o. P~cifie E c h i n i ' ; de Meijere's " ' S i b o g a ' E c h i n o i d e a " ; Th. Mortensen's " ' Ingolf ' Echineidea; Sium-Echi- n o i d e a " ; D0derlein's ' Echinoidea d. Deutsehen Tiefsee- Expedi t ion ~ ," Koehler!s " ' I nves t iga to r ' Ech ino idea" ; H. L. Clark's 'Ca ta logue of the Recent Se~-Urehins o f the British Museum ' - - w o r k s which must for ever remain the foundat ion of echinologicat science; then in the whole l i terature on fossil Echinoids, in zoological and paImontological text-books, the name, therefore, be ing familiar not only to biologists in general, bu t also to palseontologists. Fur ther , we have the names of higher order: Diadematoidea, Diadematidm, etc., and numerous compositions of the name - d i a d e m a : H y p o d i a d e m a , H e t e r o d i a d e m a , A s p i d o d i a d e m a , P s e u d o d i a d e m a , e t c . - - more than twen ty names composed of - d i a d e m a , which are perfectly valid even in the strictest interpretat ion of the Rules* ; also several impor tan t technical terms, e. g., di~dematoid ambulacral structure. But the name 1 ) i a d e m a itself must no t be used, n o t because ~ny other organism ca~ claim the name, bu t because as a s y n o n y m of C o r o n u l a it ought to be a dead name.

Recent ly Lamber t and Thi6ry (" Notes Echinologiques. - - I I I . Sur les genres de la sous-famille des Diadematidse," Bull. Soc. Sci. nat. Haute-Marne, vi. 1909) maintain tha t

~ Those name~ are :-- I, Aplodiadema Loriol. 2. Aspidodiadema A. Agassiz. 3~ Ch~todladema Mrtsn. 4~ 1)ermatodiadema A. Agassiz

(Plesiodiadema Pomel)L 5. D~ademopsls Desor. 6, Endeodiadema Loriol. 7. Eodiadema Duncan. 8. Glyptodiadema PomeL 9. Gymnodiadema LorioL

10. Hemidiadema L. Agassiz. t i. Heterodiadema Cotteau. 12. Hypodiadema Desor. 13. Lep~odiadema A. Ag. & H. L.

Clark. 14. Li~sodiadema Mrtsn.

t5. 2~acrodiadema Lambert. 16. Mesod~adema Neumayr. 17. Microdladema Cetteau. 18. Monodiadema Loriol. t9. Orthodiadema Lambert &

Thi6ry. 20. Palceodiadema Pomel

(Helikodiadema Gregory). 21. Pleurodiadema Loriol. 22. Polydiadema Lambert.

(Plaeod.iadema Duncan.) 23. Prodiadema PomeL 24. Pseudodiazlema Desor, 25. Scaptodiadema Loriol. 26. Trochodiadema Loriol.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Ecl, inoderm .J~rames. 363

the name Diadema must be used for the forms hitherto generally designated b y the name Echinothrix Peters, claiming that the Diadema turcar~tm of Schynvoct, viz., l~umphius's tab. xiv. B is identicM with the Echinus diadema of Linnmus, a typical Echinothrix. That this is an error is easily seen on comparing the said figure in Rumphius with the excellent figure of Linnmus's Echinus diadema given by Lov4n, 1887 (" On the Echinoidea described by Linnmus," Bihang K. Sv, Vet.-Akad. Handl. xiii. 5, Tar. 4, 1). I t is true the figure in l~umphius has rather too many ambnlacral tubercles for a Diadema, but in general it has a very good likeness to ~ Diadema, whereas it would be extremely bad for an Echinothrix; it is conceivable that the artist was not quite correct in the number of the ambulacrM tubercles, but it is hardly conceivable that he should have so grossly misrepresented an Echinothrix as not to show the characteristic widening of the adapical part of the ambulacra. Thus it must be said to be entirely unjustified to transfer the name Diadema to the genus hitherto named Echinothrix on account of this old figure. The transferring of the Diadema-species to the genus Centrostephanus Peters is equally unjustified, but this need not concern us here, as it has no bearing on the use of this latter name, the genotype of which remains, as also Lambert and Thi~ry admit, the Mediterraneaal Diadema longispina Philippi.

We must then, in view of the very unhappy consequences of dropping the name Diadema, a s explained above, strongly recommend that this name be made a nomen conservandum thus : --

Diade'nu~ Gray, with genotype Echinometra 8etosa Leske.

Signed by : Bather, Brighton, A. H. Clark, Cottreau, Currie,

Diakonov, D6derlein, Ekman, Faas, Fedotov, Gisl~n, Goto, Gregory, Grieg, Hecker, Heding, I-I4rouard, v. Hof- sten, Klingh~rdt, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, l~avn, Reichensperger, Schmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, VMette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

H. L. Clark (with whom Jackson sides) states: " M y objection to reserving Diadema may be briefly stated thus. The name Diazlema was first used for a Crustacean.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

364 Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm 2¢ames.

I t was subsequently used in several other groups, including Eehini. All of these uses were totally invalid owing to the first use for a crustacean. Quite accidentally, and through the prestige of the name of Agassiz, the use for a sea urchin became general, while the uses for other animals more or less disappeared. The name, however, was quite invalid for a sea urchin, and in 1912 Jackson substituted Centrechinus in complete accord with the international Code . . . . . and this name has been used in a considerable number of publications in the past twenty years . . . . . After conference with a dozen of the best authorities in this colmtry on zoological nomenclature, I see no reason to abandon Centrechinus and I have little doubt tha t for ty or fifty years from now it will be quite universally adopted."

Deichmann: " As Diadema is preoccupied it has to be dropped, and if a new name had not already been coined, one would have to make one."

Fisher : " In view of the fact that there is already confusion in the application of Diadema to an Echinoid, I vote for Centrechinus, which has actually been employed in literature since 1912 as often as Diadema."

Hawkins: " I consider Centrechinus to be properly established, and feel constrained, though with considerable regret, to support it as a substitute for Diadema."

Lambert : " Oui, le genre Diadema doit ~tre conserve, mais le type n'est pas la D. setosa de Gray ; c'est le D. turcarum mentionn4 par LinnS, avec renvoi £ la pt. xiv. fig. B de Rumph, qui est la fig. 5, pl. viii. de Petiver."

Replying to the objections thus set forth against making D~adema a nomen conservandum I beg to remark, firstly, tha t there is, of course, no doubt that the name Centre- chinus was legally in troduced--provided that we ignore the original, binominal, use of the name, Diadema turcarum, because it was pre-Linnean, the justice of which is, at least, disputable. Secondly, this is decidedly not a clear case of preoccupation, part ly because of the said pre- Linnean use of the name Diadema, and of Lamarck's use of the designation " les Diad~mes," part ly because of the name in the case of the Cirripedian being a dead synonym only. If the Cirripedian had been previously unnamed it might have had a legal claim to the name, but having already two years before been named Coronula

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm _Names. 365

it has no claim to the name Diadema, except as a dead synonym.

Thirdly, though the name Centrechinus be used ever so much in literature after 1912, this can never do away with the fact that the name Diadema has been used unanimously in the whole of the scientific literature of last century up to 1912, in zoology and palseontology alike, and in the whole of that literature which must for ever remain the fundament of echinological science. As we can never do away with that literature, we can never get rid of the name Diadema, whereas Centrechinus, though it be now used in some text-books, will, if now abandoned, rapidly share the fate of innumerable other synonyms.

8. PHOLIDOCIDARIS Meek & Worthen, LOVE]gEC~I~US Jackson.

The genus Pholidocidaris was established in 1869 by Meek and Worthen, in their paper "Descriptions of new Crinoids and Echinoids from the Carboniferous Rocks of the Eastern States " (Prec. Acad. Nat. So. Philadelphia, 1869, p. 76), for the species irregularis, originally described by the same authors (o/0. cir. p. 78) as Lepitlocentres irregularis. The name Pholidocidaris has been very generally accepted--by Zittel, Lov6n, Duncan, Lambert and Thirty, and, particularly, by Jackson, in his monographio work on palaeozoic Echini (' Phylogeny of the Echini,' 1912).

In 1918 Bather, in his paper "Protoechinus Austin " (Ann. &Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 9, vol. i. p. 40) showed, through a re-examination of the original specimen, that the Eehinoid described by Austin in 1860 (" On a new Genus of Echinoderm, and Observations on the Genus Palc~- echinus," ' The Geologist,' iii. p. 446), under the name of Protoechinus anceps, is a Pholidocidaris, stating, however, that " since Austin's description has proved to be quite unrecognizable, the name Protoechinus, though of earlier date, cannot possibly supplant Pholidocidaris Meek & Woldhen, 1869."

The genus Lovenechinus was established by Jackson in his 'Phylogeny of the Echini,' 1912, p. 324, with Oligoporus missouriensis Jackson as the genotype. To

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

366 Dr. Th. M0rtensen on some Echinoderm Na~nes.

this genus belongs also the species lacazei, described by Julien, 1896 (' Le terrain carbonifgre marin de la France eentrale,' p. 128, pl. xvi. figs. 3-5), as Palceechinus lacazei. Identical with this species is the specimen described by de Koninck, 1869 (" Sur quelques Echinodermes remarquables des terrains pal5ozoiques," Bull. Aead. R. Belgicluc, s6r. 2, xxviii, p. 546, fig. 1; and 1870, " On some new and remarkable Echinoderms from the British Palmozoic Rocks," Geol.-Magaz. dee. 1, vol. vii. p. 259, pl. vii. fig. 1), under the name of Palo~echinus sphcericus M'Coy, the identification with this latter species being erroneous.

Basing on de Koninck's description of Palceechinus srhcericus, Pomel (1883, in his 'Classification m~thodique et genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles,' p. 114) established the genus Eriechinus, with P. sphcericus as the genotype, this genus differing from Palceechinus " par la structure de l'apex, dont une des g4nitales n'a qu'un seul pore et dont les ocellaires sont en dehors du cadre dans les angles."

Not knowing PomeI's work, Neumayr in 1889 (' Die St~mme des Tierreiehs,' i. p. 363) established the genus Typhlechinus for the same, false Palaeechinus sphvericus, this name being, of course, a synonym of Eriechinus Pomel.

De Koninck's specimen of "Palceechinus sphcericus " was re-examined by Bather (see Jackson's ' Phylogeny,' pp. 330-331), who showed that the ocular plates are present, though small. The specimen is not identical with Palveechinus spheericus M'Coy (now Maccoya sphcerica (M'Coy)), but with Julien's Palceechinus lacazei, now Lovenechinus lacazei (Julien).

Jackson, although well aware of the fact that this species lacazei had thus already, as a matter of fact, been made the type of two genera, Eriechinus Pomel and Typhlechinus Neumayr, thought it justifiable to consider these two names as " out of court as generic names," because they are based on erroneous observations and erroneous identification, and so created a new name, Lovenechinus, of which both Eriechinus and Typhlechinus, though earlier established, are regarded as synonyms.

The two cases of Pholidocidaris and Lovenechinus are exactly parallel. In both cases the older name is rejected because of the insufficient or erroneous character of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dr. Th. Mortensen on some Echinoderm IVames. 367

original descriptions; but i n both cases the original specimen is preserved, through re-examination of wlfich their true characters have been made known and their exact systematic position been ascertained.

I f that were to be made a general rule that insufficient descriptions or erroneous identifications should be good reason for rejecting names of earlier date and establistfing new names instead, where would we be with most of the elder literature ? How many of Linnzeus's or Lamarck's names would then stand criticism ? Does not everybody accept the names of these and other old authors, in spite of all inadequacy of the original descriptions, if only we have their original specimens--or even if by any other means we can make a reasonable conclusion as to which species are really meant ? But here, in the two cases mentioned, it means nothing that we have the original specimens and have been able to ascertain their characters and exact systematic position.

I t would seem beyond doubt that according to the Rules, and in accordance with fair treatment of older authors, the name Protoechinus should replace Pholido- cidar,is, and the name Eriechinu8 replace Lovenechinus, as the older and being perfectly recognizable through the original specimens. However, nothing at all would be gained by reintroducing these elder little-known names instead of those used in the main literature and generally known; on the contrary, introducing these older names could only result in trouble and further confusion. We, therefore, recommend t h e codification of the two names, thus : - -

Pholidocidaris Meek & Worthen, with genotype Lepi- docentru8 irregularis Meek & Worthen.

Lovenechinus Jackson, with genotype Oligoporus mis- souriensis Jackson.

Signed by : Brighton, A. H. Clark, H. L. Clark, Cottreau, Deich-

mann, Diakonov, D6derlein, Fans, Fedotov, Fisher, Goto, Grieg, Hecker, Heding, H6rouard, Jackson, Klinghardt, Lambert, Lieberkind, Mortensen, Nobre, Ohshima, Panning, t~avn, P~eiehensperger, Sehmidt, Spencer, Stefanini, Valette, Vaney, Wanner, Yakovlev.

Bather remarks : "Though I by no means agree that the two cases are on all roars, I support this application.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

368 Mr. G. C. Robson on the

" A s regards Protoechinus I may point out that nobody understood it, not even the Austins themselves; and nobody could have understood it before the matrix was cleaned away. Even in its present condition the specimen would be a most unsatisfactory and hopelessly incomplete basis on which to establish a genus."

Hawkins states : " In favour of Lovenechinus; doubt- ful about Pholidocidaris, since Protoeehinus has a perfectly recognizable and now adequately described genotype."

Gregory (with whom sides Currie) : " I agree as regards first recommendation, but should prefer the retention of Typhlechinus to Lovenechinus."

Ekman, Gisl6n, and v. Hofsten have not voted on these n a m e s .

X X X I X . - - N o t e s on the Cephalopoda.--No. 16. On the Variation, Eggs, and Ovipository Habits of Floridan Octopods. By G. C. RousoN~ M.A., F.L.S.

(Published by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.)

IN July 193[ Dr. van Ityning, Director of the :Florida State :Museum (Gainesville), sent me for determination some Octopods from the Gulf Coast of S. Florida, together with some eggs and notes on the oviposltion. Dr. van Hyning's inquiry involved two distinct issues-- (a) the identity of the specimens submitted and of the form or forms responsible for laying the eggs, and (b)the curious ovipository habits revealed. These matters are treated separately in this paper.

(a) On the Species of Floridan Octopus and their Eggs.

Dr. van Hyning was originally under the impression that in the Octopus population of his area there were two distinct species. He informed me that "we find a great many large ones, about 20 to 30 inches [over all], running uniform; and then another group of smaller ones about 4 to 6 inches that appear never" to get larger." In addition to the diffe- rence iu size of the adults Dr. van Hyning discovered that on the coast of Florida there were two different kinds of Octopus eggs deposited--one about 13×5 ram., the other 8 x 3"5. In two sets of these eggs before me the larger shows no trace of the embryo, while the smaller eggs contain fully developed young Octopods. Thus, uiLless we are to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

51 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014