OCR Text |
Show 132 DR. J. S. BOWERBANK ON SPONGES. [Feb 13, discophora. Dr. Gray, in page 549, " 4. Erylus," also introduces us to a new form of ovarium thus, " with oblong ovisacs ;" but I presume the author means oval ovisacs, not with flat sides and rectangular ends as in an oblong figure. Dr. Gray's genus Placospongia, page 549, described by him in Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1867, p. 128, is neither more nor less than Geodia carinata, Phil. Trans. 1858, p. 314, tab. 36. fig. 42. Many years since, I found specimens of this species arranged in the cases at the British Museum among the corals, and I pointed them out to Dr. Baird as placed there in error ; and he immediately removed them from the case. I have several specimens based on Oculina rosea from the South Seas, and their history in M S . The species is structurally in perfect accordance with the genus Geodia, although very discrepant in external form from the majority of the other species of that rather numerous genus. The 18th family in Dr. Gray's proposed arrangement is Potamospongia, containing the Spongillidse, which he treats in his accustomed style, dividing this eminently natural genus into seven divisions and adding to them as an eighth one m y genus Diplodemia, a sponge of very different organization, the skeleton having an abundance of kerato-fibrous structure in its composition. Page 557. Fam. 2. Alcyoncellidee. Dr. Gray describes the genus Alcyoncellum thus-" Sponge soft, subgelatinous, slightly branched. " Alcyoncellum et Alcyoncella, Blainville, Man. d'Actin. p. 529, 1832 (not Milne-Edwards, 1835, Bowerbank, nor Owen, Nardo, nor O. Schmidt). " Alcyoncellum gelatinosum, Blainv. Man. d'Actin. p. 529, tab. 92. fig, 5." "Hab. . B.M.?" From this quotation we should naturally imagine that all preceding writers who have referred to this genus, as founded by M M . Quoy et Gaimard, were wrong ; and that it was originally established by Blainville in his Man. d'Actin., published 1834, instead of by M M . Quoy et Gaimard in their ' Zoology of the Voyage of the Astrolabe,' published in 1830, and that Dr. Gray was the only writer who had attributed the genus to its true founder, M . de Blainville. But on reference to the work of that author, we find that he makes the following observations regarding it in page 529 :- "Observ.-Ce genre a ete e'tabli par M M . Quoy et Gaimard pour un corps organise, rapporte dans leur dernier voyage, et qu'ils ont bien voulu soumettre a notre observation," &c. After this, what are we to say to the correctness of Dr. Gray's quotations, and to the laws of nomenclature he would fain establish by his sole declaration ? In such matters, and on such authority, are we to submit to his saying, " I am Sir Oracle ; and when I ope m y lips, let no dog bark "? or are we, in accordance with the excellent and just rules recommended by the committee for nomenclature of the British Association, to render justice to those authors by the permanent adoption of the names they have given to genera and species, which they have been the first to make known to science ? |