African Tardigrada. By J. Murray. 137 



the genus from Macrohiotus is the absence of eyes, which nobody 

 now regards as of generic importance. Thulin rejects that cha- 

 racter, and introduces one of his own, viz. the absence of a certain 

 obscure rod connected with the gullet, which, h^j asserts, exists in 

 Macrohiotus. This is a very unfortunate proceeding, since this rod 

 has been seen, or its absence demonstrated, only in a very few 

 species. Yet he groups the large number of species hitherto re- 

 cognized as Macrohiotus in the two genera, separated only on this 

 character, and he does not know in most cases whether the 

 animals have the character or not. The result of this ill-considered 

 classification is unhappy. We find united in the genus Hyjpsihius 

 the most diverse animals, those with spiny eggs and those with 

 smooth eggs, elongated gullets and short gullets, Diphascon claws 

 and Hufelandi claws, etc. — in short, all the characters which have 

 seemed available for the sub-division of the unwieldy Macrohiotus 

 into several genera may be found in some species of Thulin's 

 Hypsihius ; and he crowns all by throwing in all the many species 

 of Diphascon. 



In some recent papers I have suggested the use of Schultze's 

 name, Arctiscoida, for the order whicli includes the Water-bears, 

 owing to the fact that the name Tardigrada had been previously 

 used for a group of Vertebrates by Illiger. 



There is no doubt as to the fact, but Professor Eichters urges 

 that Illiger s name was never widely accepted, and has fallen into 

 complete disuse. How far he is right I do not know without a 

 more thoroucrh search throuojh zoological text-books than I can 

 at present make. Illiger's name is used in the Encyclopaedia 

 Britannica (ninth edition) only, it is true, as an alternative name 

 for a group, and has found its way into some P^nglish dictionaries. 



I have no desire to upset established names, unless for some 

 very strong reason. All I seek is some stability for names, so that 

 we may know what animal is referred to without consulting a volu- 

 minous synonymy, with all possible respect for the original authors 

 of specific names. 



There is a prevalent practice, sanctioned by rule, I believe, of 

 tagging on to a species the name of the man who first used both 

 generic and specific parts of the name together. Eecently I found 

 myself cited as the authority for a Ehizopod. Surely this is absurd ! 

 I never described a Ehizopod in my life, but it happened that I 

 first referred to it and the genus to which it is at present considered 

 to belong. It is true the original author's name was there, too, 

 in brackets ; but he described the beast well, and why should his 

 name be dissociated from it as long as his specific name is re- 

 tained ? 



There appears to be a confusion of ideas, a desire to tell too 

 much in the specific name, as is also done in those groups in which 

 specialists have introduced trinomial designations. 1 like the 

 April 16th, 1913 L 



