1913] The Ottawa Naturalist. 141 



Ogygia de Guettard and O. de Desmarest, which appear to be 

 congeneric. The type of 0. guettardi, which is still in the collec- 

 tions at the Sorbonne, in Paris, has recently been redescribed 

 and figured by CEhlert in the first fasiculus of the Paleontologia 

 Universalis. It is evident that this trilobite is not at all related 

 to the familiar Ogygias of Wales and Scandinavia. Barrande 

 was the first to point this out, and Tromelin and Lebesconte 

 stated it long ago. These latter authors also noted that Ogygia 

 was a preoccupied name, having been used by Hubner in 1816 

 for a genus of Lepidoptera, and they proposed Ogygites to replace 

 it. 12 Goldfuss, in 1843, without giving any special reason, 

 transferred Brongniart's Asaphus de Buck to the genus Ogygia, 

 and this species has, in time, thanks to Salter's description, 

 come to be considered the type of the genus Ogygia. Now that 

 we know what the original type of that genus is, this later position 

 can not be defended except on the general plea "That everyone 

 knows what an Ogygia is, and it will make trouble to change 

 now." 13 Ogygia buchi was not one of the original species of 

 Ogygia, is not generically the same as the species originally 

 assigned to that genus, and yet is, by the law of tradition, made 

 the type of Ogygia, thus ousting the original species! Truly 

 scientists must venerate tradition! To be logical we must now 

 propose a new generic name for the original species of Ogygial 

 But Sweden has produced a man who was not afraid to look 

 things squarely in the face and defy tradition, and in his Pale- 

 ontologia Scandinavica, Angelin proposed Ogygiocaris to replace 

 Ogygia in the sense used by authors generally, but not by 

 Brongniart, selecting the Scandinavian 0. dilatata as the type. 

 Therefore, Ogygia disappears, being preoccupied, Ogygites takes 

 its place for primitive Asaphinae with annulated pygidia and 

 forked hypostomata, and Ogygiocaris stands for trilobites of the 

 type of Ogygiocaris dilatata and 0. buchi. 



Another familiar name which must go, merely because it 

 is preoccupied, is Bronteus. Goldfuss 14 described this as Brontes 

 in 1839. De Koninck 15 saw that this name had already been 

 used by Fabricius for an insect, and therefore proposed to change 

 the name to Goldius, a contraction of Goldjussius. This did not 

 appeal to Goldfuss, evidentlv, for he slightly modified his original 

 term in 1843, making it Bronteus. If we can use a name only 

 once in the animal kingdom, we must adopt Goldius. Here 



12 Assc. Fr. Avanc. Sci. Cong. Nantes, p. 631, 1876. 



13 See Schmidt, Revis, Ostbalt. Sil. Trilobiten, Abt. 5, lief. 3, p. 37. 



14 Nov. Act. Acad. Cass. Leop, Carol., vol. 19, pt. 1, 1839. 

 18 Nouv. Mem. de l'Acad. de Brux., vol. 14, p. 6, 1841. 



