40 NATURAL SCIENCE. Jdly, 



the rostrum ; these are wanting in the European species. As to the 

 names, Dr. Herrick is not entirely consistent throughout his volume, 

 having probably written the bulk of it before he engaged in that 

 discussion of nomenclature which appears on the eighth and ninth 

 pages. On this point the remarks of Mr. J. T. Cunningham in the 

 May number of Natural Science are very opportune, for he 

 illustrates them from the two species here in question. In dealing 

 with synonyms, Mr. Cunningham recommends us to " Choose that 

 which is associated with what you consider the most correct 

 description and classification. For example, Homarus vulgaris has 

 been used by the latest and best authorities on the systematic 

 affinities of the lobster, and therefore should not be changed." He 

 does not explain what is to be done if one finds the most correct 

 description under one synonym and the most correct classification 

 under another. There is the same ambiguity in his appeal to "the 

 latest and best authorities," since by the very references he gives he 

 intimates (in a very gentle manner) that the latest authorities are 

 sometimes not the best. The name Homarus vulgaris was given to the 

 European lobster by Henri Milne-Edwards in 1837. The name 

 Astacus gammanis was given to it in 181 9 by Leach, who took over its 

 specific designation from Linnaeus. Dr. Herrick has persuaded him- 

 self to call it Homarus gammanis (Linn.), not in the least because he 

 shares Mr. Cunningham's principles of nomenclature, which " would 

 lead to mere anarchy and chaos, "^ but from an accidental misappre- 

 hension of the authorities concerned. He says that " Latreille, in 

 1810, designated as the type of the old genus Astacus the species 

 A. fluviatilis Fabricius { — Cancer astacus Linne), which is the 

 European crayfish. In 1815 Leach began to dismember this genus 

 by giving to the Norwegian lobster the name Nephrops. Later, in 

 i8ig, he proposed the generic term Potamohius^ to embrace the true 

 crayfishes, leaving the lobster alone in possession of the Aristotelian 

 name." It is unnecessary to quote the whole of the long paragraph. 

 It ends by saying that " Stebbing, apparently unaware of Latreille's 

 restriction, proposed to restore the old terminology of Leach." 

 Latreille's book, " Considerations generales, etc.," 1810, far from being 

 overlooked, had, in fact, caused me some anxiety, though only for a 

 moment. So far as Astacus is concerned it added nothing to previous 

 knowledge, and in the "Table des Genres avec I'indication de I'espece 

 qui leur sert de type," it may fairly be argued that " Astacus fiuviatilis, 

 Fab.," is given not as the type, but merely as a type, an example, a 

 specimen of the genus, the handiest one for a Parisian reader to 

 recognise. But, if it be insisted that Latreille here intended to set up 

 the crayfish as technically type of the genus, in preference to the 

 lobster, of which his book makes no mention, the answer is simple. 



^ See Editorial Note, p. 302. 



'■' Not Potamobia, as I supposed, until the well-informed American carcinologist 

 Miss Mary J. Rathbun, called my attention to the inaccuracy. 



