114 PROCEEDINGS OP THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.53. 



placing this copepod among the sea fans, and this error was copied 

 by Ellis, Lamarck, Esper, and others, each of whom described 

 the creature simply from a figure given by one of the others. Cuvier 

 recognized that it did not belong with the polyps, but he went too 

 far in the opposite direction and declared that it must be con- 

 sidered as belonging to the genus Caligus of Miiller. 



In a later edition (1830) he adopted Oken's genus Pennella under 

 the Lerneans (vol. 3, p. 256), but included in it only the single 

 species, flosa. 



However, on page 320 in a footnote under the polyp genus Pen- 

 natula he said: ^'' Pennatula fllosa^ et Pennatula sagittata, sont des 

 animaux parasites, du genres des lernees (les Penelles, Oken) ; 

 mais nullement des pennatules. Le Penn. sagitta, Esper, Pennat., 

 pi. V, est tout autre chose que celui de Linn.; peutetre est-ce un 

 Nephtkys.^^ 



De Kay, after noting the above treatment of the parasite, said: 

 " This animal has been first ranked as a Lernea^ a parasite, then 

 considered as a pennatule or polype, afterwards placed in the genus 

 Cahjgus as a crustaceous animal, and finally, it has been decided 

 that it shall occupy a new genus as an Annelide." (p. 88.) He then 

 gave an incomplete description of a mutilated specimen from " Dio- 

 don pilosiis,''^ sent to him by Doctor Mitchill, together with a text 

 figure. The head, the neck, and the anterior portion of the genital 

 segment were lacking, the specimen having evidently been broken 

 off on a level with the outside surface of the host's skin. 



Consequently the only portion of his description of any scien- 

 tific value was that of the " plumulae " and the name of the host. 

 And it is not surprising that he finally concluded to place the animal 

 in one of the four genera established by Lamarck under the order 

 of " Polypes tubiferes," thus restoring it to the polyps. 



Blainville described in his text a species which he claimed was the 

 sagitta of Linnaeus, Ellis, Esper, Lamarck, and DeKay (p. 3T9), 

 But he manifestly never saw the creature; his description is bor- 

 rowed from those of the other authors, and for a figure he copied the 

 imperfect wood cut of DeKay. Indeed, he comprehended so little 

 about the size and structure of the species that he described it again 

 in the explanation of his plate (p. 446) as a new species, to which he 

 gave the name brachiata. 



Nordmann gave us the first really scientific description of this 

 parasite, accompanied by excellent colored figures. He identified 

 his species with that described by Linnaeus and the others, and if 

 his identification was correct, as we have no reason to doubt, it 

 established the species of those early writers beyond question. And 

 since it was the first parasite described by Linnaeus it becomes the 



