34 



because they are considered inai)propriate in meaning. My action in 

 these cases was in accord with the letter and spirit of the code of 

 nomenclature adopted by the International Zoological Congress (Berlin, 

 1901). 



I have been unable to find support in any code of nomenclature 

 for M. Gruvel's contention. I freely admit Prof. Gruvel's right to 

 use any generic names he pleases, but I fail to see why he should ex 

 cathedra denounce me for using the oldest tenable generic names. 



I rejected M. Gruvel's family names Polyaspidae, Pent- 

 asp id ae etc. because they are not based upon generic names. There 

 are no genera Polyaspis, Pentasp/s-, Anaspis in Cirripedia though Pobj- 

 aspis in used in Arachnida, and Anaspis in Coleoptera. I use the term 

 Scalpellidae in preference to Pollicipedidae because Pollicipes 

 is not a valid generic name, hence cannot serve as the basis for a family 

 name. 



In matters of classification M. Gruvel objects to my course in di- 

 viding the old genera Scalpelbim and Alepas. He had unfortunately 

 not seen my later paper on Scalpellidae i, in which I have fully deve- 

 loped my ideas, basing the classification upon the total structure of 

 both male and hermaphrodite forms. I venture to believe that no zoo- 

 logist who looks into the matter will have difficulty in deciding between 

 my classification and the artificial arrangement in Prof. Gruvel's 

 Monograph. His use of the names Archiscalpellum, Euscalpellum and 

 Xeoscalpelhun (p. 199) cannot be followed, since I have already defined 

 the same groups, have given them names and types, and have indicated 

 their place in the evolution of the group. It must be confessed that M. 

 Gruvel's habit of ignoring the groups and names of his predecessors 

 and contemporaries is calculated to reduce the nomenclature of Cirri- 

 pedes to chaos. I may say here that 



ArchiscalpeUum Gruvel = Smilium Gray 1825. 

 Euscalpelhmi Gruvel = Scalpellimi Leach 1817. 

 Neoscalpellum Gruvel = Arcoscalpelliim Hoek 1907. 



In the case of Poecilasma and Megalasina^ I have shown that se- 

 veral forms referred to the former group really belong to the latter. No 

 evidence is presented by Prof. Gruvel to show that this course was in- 

 correct. I cannot find from M. Gruvel's work that he has had much 

 material in the group Megalasma, while my own conclusions were 

 reached from a study of hundreds of examples of a majority of the 

 known species. 



As to Alepas^ I have shown that the pelagic forms inhabiting me- 



1 Vide Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1908. p. 104-111. 



