OCR Text |
Show 1880.] PROF. AGASSIZ ON THE SYNONYMY OF ECHINI. 35 As regards the name carinatus, neither Mr. Bell nor any one else can do more than make happy guesses until the original collection of Leske, upon which Gmelin based his name, is found and identified. Passing now to p. 655, Mr. Bell himself quotes the reasons which have induced me to adopt Hipponoe, Gray, in place of Tripneustes, Agass. I will only state again as m y reason a part of what he quotes on p. 6 5 6 : - " W h e n specimens are accessible which have served as basis for any systematic work, their results should be accepted, when correct, even when they upset a nomenclature generally recognized" ('Revision of the Echini,' p. 301). The questions of spelling and of sense or nonsense in generic names it is useless to discuss anew. Professor Louis Agassiz himself suspected the identity oi Hipponoe and Tripneustes, and says that Gray's name in that case should be preferred to his. While at the British Museum I endeavoured to trace the specimens on which Gray based his name Hipponoe. Dr. Gray himself was kind enough to show me what he called Hipponoe in 1840, the same species named by him Hipponoe sardica in 1855. On the same page (656) M r. Bell further sa}rs : - " In the Bibliographical List the only references appended to the name Tripneustes are ' Int. Monog. Scut.' (sic) and ' C. R. Ann. Sc. Nat. vi.'" He is quite astonished so easily to recognize the last reference, and, having assigned the first to the ' Monographie des Scu-telles,' concludes by saying that he has searched the pages of the Introduction in vain for such a name. This statement he subsequently modifies by giving a bit of history about the second livraison of the ' Monographies d'Echinodermes' [-Scutelles], in which he says there was published a " short essay " entitled ' Observations sur les progres recens de l'histoire naturelle des Echinodermes.' Mr. Bell does not state in what part of the second livraison this so-called " short essay " is placed, but leaves the reader to infer that the second livraison was composed of a series of monographs, of which the ' Monographie des Scutelles' made one, instead of being, as it actually was, the only one. In this introductory " essay " he finds Tripneustes, which antedates (July) its publication by Agassiz, in the preface to the ' Anatomie du genre Echinus' (December); he then goes on to say (p. 6 5 7 ) : - " I do not think that there is any need to particularize such a method of detailing the history of a name in a work which is entitled a Revision; but I have thought it right, while giving an account of Professor Alex. Agassiz's method of working out his subject, to give all the material necessary for other naturalists who desire to investigate for themselves the matter in question." It may not have occurred to Mr. Bell that I probably know as well as any one what Professor Louis Agassiz himself thought of this " short essay." As is well known to all students of Echinoderms, the Monographies were issued in livraisons, each livraison having a printed cover stating its contents ; the general tith-page was issued |