NO. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 19 



authors. In such cases it seems to me that tlie names should be quoted 

 as " de Loriol ex d'Orb.", for there is nothins^ in Article 35 to prevent 

 a name being used for the same species. 



In the following instances De Loriol's remarks may be quoted more 

 fully because they bear directly on the point at issue. 



"Prodrome", vol. i, p. 241, *248 Pcntacrimis liasiniis d'Orb., 1847. Espece 

 voisine du pcntaiif/ularis, mais plus grele encore et plus uniformement lisse 

 [3 locc. are given]. 



There is no such name as P. pcniancjularis in d'Orbigny ; perhaps 

 P. pciitagonalis is meant. If so. d'Orbigii}' is comparing Liassic and 

 Oxfordian, a procedure which he criticises in the Introduction. 

 De Loriol, on examining the syntypes of P. liasinus, rejects the name, 

 as well as P. cyliiidriciis Desor noni. uud., in favor of the later P. snb- 

 teroides Quenstedt, because the latter is " le seul reellement connu 

 dans la science, puisque le premier ne Test que par une simple men- 

 tion, et le second par une phrase du ' Prodrome,' qui n'est pas meme 

 exact." 



"Prodrome", vol. i, p. 321, *?433 Pcntacrimis nodotiamis d'Orb., 1847. 

 Espece voisine du P. briarctts, mais ayant ses verticilles moins comprimes. 



De Loriol (" Paleontologie Frangaise ", 420 sqq.) explains how 

 he was quite at a loss to interpret this until he discovered the type, 

 which belonged to P. dargniesi Terquem and Jourdy, 1869. His con- 

 cluding remarks put the case clearly : 



Maintenant quel noni lui donner? Celui de d'Orbigny a la priorite d'annees, 

 mais, en verite, il est impossible de pretendre que la simple mention du 

 " Prodrome", que j'ai citee, et qui, encore, n'est pas exacte, soit suffisante pour 

 dire que I'espece a ete publiee par d'Orbigny antcricurcmcut a MM. Terquem et 

 Jourdy. Ce sont ces derniers qui, par une description et de bonnes figures, ont 

 reellement fait connaitre I'espece, dont personne, d'apres la phrase de d'Orbigny, 

 ne pouvait avoir la moindre idee, sauf que c'etait un Extracrinus. Je crois done 

 que le nom de P. nodotiamis doit etre de.finitivement abandonne, parce qu'il etait 

 impossible de savoir quelle espece il representait, et que, in realite, avant MM. 

 Terquem et Jourdy, I'espece n'avait pas ete publiee. 



With these remarks of De Loriol I entirely agree. 



To sum up these enquiries into the adequacy of the " Prodrome '' 

 diagnoses. — It appears that, while some are clearly inade(iuate, others 

 have been found adequate by specialists who took all the facts into 

 consideration. In this respect the " Prodrome " does not seem to me 

 worse than many works which have always been accepted. Among 

 relevant facts I do not include the existence of a type specimen ; at the 

 same time it may be pointed out that, although d'Orbigny indicates by 

 an asterisk the existence of specimens in his collection, he nowhere 



