10 



SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



to it in the index at the end of the fascicle, where all the species described are 

 Very carefully cited; but the name is not found there. Thus the name pusillus, 

 published in 1776, undoubtedly has priority, even under the strictest interpre- 

 tation of the priority rule. The fact that Gmelin^ in [1790] 1788 and Blain- 

 ville ^ in 1834 made the same interpretation as Clark (19I-I) does not alter the 

 fact that there is no " Echinus minutus Pallas." 



Furthermore it is beyond doubt that, even if Pallas had really meant to give 

 the scientific name Echinus minutus to these snxall sea-urchins, this name could 

 not rightly have been used for Echinocyamus pusillus. There is no doubt that 

 his figure 25 really represents this species, as becomes quite evident from his 

 statement "Abundat hie autem inter minuta testacea arenae Belgicae " ; there 

 is no other echinoid occurring on the Belgian coasts with which it could be con- 

 founded, and I personally have collected a number of specimens on the sandy 

 beach near Ostend. But Pallas refers to two different forms with his " Echinos 

 minutos " ; the first of them, fig. 24, " priore icone expressus subglobosus ex 

 Orientali India crebro adfertur " ; this species is beyond doubt a Fibularia, and 

 if there had really been an "Echinus minutus Pallas" the name would then 

 have to be applied to this East Indian form, not to the second form referred 

 to by Pallas, that from the Belgian coast." 



In his "Catalogue of the Recent Sea-Urchins (Echinoidea) in the Collection 

 of the British Museum," 1925, p. 167, H. L. Clark again accepts "minutus" of 

 Pallas [1774. 34] as the proper name of the species in question, stating: "I 

 think that Pallas certainly named the small sea-urchins that he figured. Echinus 

 minutus; this is clearly shown by the type in which the words are printed. That 

 he used the accusative plural instead of the nominative singular is not impor- 

 tant, for all through the fascicle he varied case and number of his scientific 

 names to suit the sense. The omission of the name from the index is natural, 

 as the index includes only the names used for headings of sections, paragraphs, 

 etc., printed in big type, and Echinus minutus was not so used. Finally, if 

 Echinus viinutus is not the name of the objects shown in figs. 24 and 25 of 

 Pallas's plate i, then there is no name given at all, and this not only does vio- 

 lence to the context, but is unique in the fascicle. 



" Mortensen goes on to say that even if Pallas did create the name Echinus 

 minutus, it should be used for the Fibularia that Pallas also figures under his 

 ' Echinos minutos.' But again Dr. Mortensen's reasoning seems to me erro- 

 neous. Pallas included at least two species in his Echinus minutus, but Gmelin 

 (1788, Syst. Nat. Linn., Ed. 13, p. 3194) very clearly restricted the name to the 

 form common on the coast of Belgium." 



While it must be conceded that Gmelin did restrict the name Echinus minutus 

 to the form common on the coast of Belgium (== the only European species of 

 the genus Echinocyamus), it still seems; clear to me that Pallas did not mean to 

 name any species Echi)ius niinutus. True he gives some names in the accusa- 

 tive singular — but these are definitely designated as names, viz., p. 23^" Buccinum 

 quod Geuersianum appellabo " and " quod Helicem Lyonetianum .... appel- 

 lare liceat," and they are found in tlie Index. But he does not thus designate 

 his " Echinos minutos " as a name, and it is not found in the Index as are all 

 the true names in his work. 



''Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, cnra Gmelin, 17S8, p. 3194. [Definitely 

 admits and cites " E.chinus minutus" as a species.] 



MI. de Blainville, Manuel d'Actinologie, 1834, p. 214. [Follows Gmelin.]. 



