OCR Text |
Show 1880.] PROF. AGASSIZ ON THE SYNONYMY OF ECHINI. 37 that considerable confusion has arisen in the generic synonymy from their omission at the time of the publication of the Catalogue raisonne of Agassiz and Desor. Mr. Bell's reference to the 'NomenclatorZoologicus,' March (1842), in support of his position that Professor Agassiz believed he first used the name Tripneustes in the Preface of the 'Anatomiedu genre Echinus,' only proves that it was not correctly quoted in the 'Nomen-clator.' Of the genera mentioned for the first time in the Introduction to the Monographie des Scutelles we find Temnopleurus, Pleur-echinus, Amblypneustes, Tetrapygus, and Agarites referred correctly in the 'Nomenclator' to the 2nd livr. Monogr. d'Echinod.; while Mycrocyphus, Tripneustes, Toxopneustes, and Stomopneustes, which accompany them and are designated in precisely the same manner by reference to a well-known species, are all quoted in the Nom. Zool. as 4th livraison, where they also occur as well as Salmacis and Holopneustes. The last two genera appear in the 4th livr. for the first time ; yet Salmacis alone is correctly quoted in the 'Nomenclator,' while Holopneustes is omitted and is not found in the ' Nomenclator ' at all. On p. 657, Mr. Bell further says " the name variegatus is never used by any writer on the genus Tripneustes subsequent to Leske and prior to Alex. Agassiz." I must again refer Mr. Bell to p. 35 of Chronological List; there he will find that I had seen the original of Klein's Cidaris variegata, and naturally retained that name in preference to angulosus. It is therefore obvious that, on the principles which have guided me in the ' Revision,' the name which I must use is variegata and not angulosus. I am perfectly aware that many and very annoying mistakes (of omission and commission) have crept into the 'Revision '-which by the way was published in 1872-74, and not in 1872-73 as is stated by Mr. Bell on p. 249; no one will be more pleased to see them corrected than myself, even when shown up so pointedly as is done by Mr. Bell. I fail to see that Mr. Bell has by his criticisms of the nomenclature of the ' Revision' established a single one of his points or supplied any material not already there, though evidently it is not in a form suited to his wishes. I wish therefore once for all to protest against any further misrepresentations of the facts on his part. As the Synonymy of the ' Revision' is based upon specimens and not upon names, I have endeavoured so to arrange the Chronological Lists, Synonymy, and Synonymic Index as to leave Echinologists fr.ee to, adopt any name suited to their views of nomenclature and not to force upon them my peculiar views. I have also attempted to supply the materials necessary for independent investigation with a minimum waste of time. Judging from the criticisms I have thus far received from other naturafists, I have no cause to complain of the time spent on the ' Revision,' although it is plain thatl cannot hope the' Revision 'will be of any use to one who, like Mr. Bell, is of opinion that " for the |