OCR Text |
Show 34 PROF. AGASSIZ ON THE SYNONYMY OF ECHINI. [J evidently the forerunners of others, it would be premature to enter here into any discussion of the criticisms of Mr. Bell on the characters of this or that species; yet the tone adopted by Mr. Bell from the outset towards me calls for some counterstatement on m y part, not on matters involving difference of opinion, but on questions which underlie the method I have adopted in the ' Revision of the Echini.' In the first of the two articles (pp. 249 and 655) which alone concern us at present, it seems unnecessary to notice such quibbling as occurs on p. 252 in reference to the synonymy of Echinus and Brissus. When we come, however, to the omission of a synonym, this is of course, as Mr. Bell says, a more serious matter. I am accused (p. 252) of omitting in the synonymy of Brissus unicolor the name E. unicolor, Gmeh, which I quote in the Chronological List, while I introduce in the synonymy E. ovatus, Gmel. This charge I will answer by quotations from the ' Revision' (pp. 28 and 87) :- " In giving the synonymy of species which have become historical, it becomes a necessity to cull the long list of quotations misnamed synonyms, aud to separate what is merely bibliographical from what constitutes the history of the name and tbe history of the species.'' " Not to introduce too many doubtful synonyms, a general concordance of all the names given to Echini, including M S . names mentioned, is added, where doubtful synonyms will be found recorded by referring them to some species of this Revision." If M r. Bell will read the first page (p. 87) of the synonymy of the 'Revision,' and then look in the Synonymic Index (p. 187) under Echinus unicolor, he will find the very reference to the synonymy of Brissus unicolor on p. 97, which he states I have omitted. H e next says, p. 252, " the date of the specific term unicolor being then 1788, what is the date of carinatus ? " But the date oi unicolor is not 1788; it is 1734. Mr. Bell will find in the Chronological List, on p. 36, under " 1734 Klein (continued)," Brissus unicolor I This means, as Mr. Bell can ascertain from the Revision (p. 87), that I had seen the original specimen of Klein's Brissus unicolor! [see Introd. Revision Echini, p. ix]. On one side therefore we have the statement of Mr. Bell that the date of unicolor is 1788, and on the other Klein's original of B. unicolor dating back to 1734, which leaves no choice of date. I have throughout the Revision recognized the same principle with regard to original or authentic specimens, and quote again from it ['Revision,' p. 13] :-"As far as the question of priority of the specific name goes, the only guide I shall take is an original or authentic specimen the oldest name shall be preserved to the exclusion of all others, if the change is based upon authentic specimens, and not simply upon a figure, a guess, which may or may not be true." Carrying out the above views, I ascribed carinatus, of which I had seen an authentic specimen, to Lamarck, and placed Echinus carinatus, Gmel., in the Synonymic Index (p. 183), referring it to Brissus carinatus, Gray (p. 96). |