70 PnOCEEDINGS OF THE 



by me in tlie'Xalural History Eeview.' Wliy should he refer 

 to that Review, iP the genus had been published still earlier in the 

 Royul Dublin Society's Journal, and why should he retain the 

 aspirate, if he had already entertained the happy idea of rejecting 

 it ? It is evident that, contrary to modern notions, he thought 

 that he had a right to do what he liked with his own. So he first 

 wrote Vaun</iO»ipsonia, as recited by Kinahan in 1858. Then in 

 1S59 he improved tliis into Vauni/iomsonia, and finally in 18G0 he 

 dropped the aspirate but resumed the p in the form Ysiwntomp- 

 sonia. Modern rules require that we should revert to the first 

 published Vaunthompsonia. 



Against retaining Cumacea, proposed by Kriiyer in 18-46, I 

 venture to indulge the vanity of quoting from my friends 

 Dr. Norman and Dr. Brady, who in tlieir ' Crustacea of North- 

 umberland and Durham,' p. 25, say, "The name Cuma of 

 Humphreys, 1795, being in use for a genus of MoUusca, the Eev. 

 T. K. E-. Stebbing has discarded it among Crustacea, substituting 

 for it BoJotria Groodsir, and for the order Cumacea the more 

 apprnpriate name Sympoda." 



JVot only was Cuma, as used by Milne-Edwards, a preoccupied 

 name, but apparently it had the further disadvantage of embalming 

 an error to which that great naturalist obstinately adhered in 

 regard to the Sympoda. He thought that his specimens were 

 embryonic, and in naming a genus for them he chose a Greek 

 word meaning among other things " an embryo." But, apart from 

 the misfortunes of its origin, this genus had no right of priority 

 in determining the name of the order, since Diastylis had been 

 well defined by the American Say ten years earlier. In Sympoda 

 we have a form corresponding with Decapoda, Schizopoda, Stomato- 

 poda, Isopoda, and Amphipoda, all of them important divisions of 

 the Malacostraca. 



(d) 



Mr. S. F. IIaemek did not agree with Mr. Stebbing's con- 

 clusions. He pointed out that the Laws of Priority which govern 

 generic and specific names do not ai)ply with equal force to 

 group-narries. He regarded the criticism that Thompson usually 

 (though not always) employs " Polyzoa " as a singular word as 

 comparatively unimportant when taken iu conjunction with the 

 broad conclusion which Thompson saw so clearly, that the 

 observations he had made would " render extensive alterations 

 and dismemberments " in classification necessary. The title of 

 Thompson's memoir shows indeed that " Polyzoa" is not a generic 

 term, but is of higher value : in other words, that it is a group- 

 name. The priority of " Polyzoa " over '' Bryozoa " is admitted, 

 and there is evidence that it was used by Thompson even earlier 

 than December, 1830, the date on the wrapper of No. IV. of the 

 ' Zoological Researches,' which consists of " Memoir v. On 

 Polyzoa." The wrapper of No. III., which is headed January, 



