CUBOIDES. 189 



M. kochii was previously known only from the warmer parts of the Atlantic, 

 as far north as the Bay of Biscay (Bigelow, :11b). The record by Murbach 

 and Shearer of this species from the North Pacific probably belongs to Diphyop- 

 sis chamissonis Huxley. 



CUBOIDES QtJOY AND Gaimard, 1827. 



In 1888 Chun described, from the Canary Islands, a very well-marked 

 Cymbonectid under the name Halopyramis adamantina. Almost simultaneously 

 it was described and figured by Haeckel ('88b) as Cymha crystallus. In 1892 

 Chun published a second, very detailed account, with beautiful figures; and 

 he then recognized that instead of being unknown to the early students, it was 

 in fact the polygastric state of the Eudoxid described by Quoy and Gaimard 

 in 1827 as Cuboides vitreus. Chun also recognized the possibility that his Halo- 

 pyramis might be identical with the Enneagonum hyalinum of the latter authors, 

 though, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the figures and description of 

 Enneagonum, he retained the name Halopyramis. Since that time Halo- 

 pyramis has been adopted by Bedot ('96) and by Lens and Van Riemsdijk 

 (:08), but Schneider argues that the form studied by Chun was in reality the 

 Enneagonum of Quoy and Gaimard. The figures of Enneagonum (Quoy and 

 Gaimard, '27) are so indefinite that after studying them together with the original 

 description I feel as uncertain as did Chun ('92) whether or not Enneagonum 

 and Halopyramis are identical or distinct. However, whatever may be the 

 decision on this point, the use of the generic term Halopyramis is contrary to 

 the International code of zoological nomenclature, because all recent authors, 

 Chun himself included, agree that the Eudoxid of Halopyramis was long ago 

 described by Quoy and Gaimard as Cuboides vitreus. The principle that a name, 

 generic or specific, applied to any part of an animal, or to the larva, or to any 

 one generation, before the animal itself is named, is to be retained, is now well 

 established and generally accepted. And this principle, of course, gives Cuboides 

 precedence over Halopyramis; and inasmuch as Cuboides is recognizable, 

 whereas Enneagonum is at best dubious, and both were proposed in the same 

 publication, and figured on the same plate, there is good reason for accepting 

 the former definitely. For the history of Enneagonum hyalinum, and the 

 various names under which it has been quoted, see Chun, '92, p. 113. 



Leaving out of the question the problematical Enneagonum hyalinum 

 it is probable that all the members of Cuboides ("Halopyramis") yet described 

 belong to a single species. This is certainly true of the forms studied by Chun 

 and by Haeckel; and though Chun ('92) believed that Abyla vogtii Huxley, 



