Ma?tchester Memoirs, Vol. xlv. (1901), No. 9- 5 



to have leisure from barren discussion of names to 

 devote to more profitable investigation. 



II. HiSTiOPSiS. 



The name Histiopsis which I proposed in 1885 ('85, 

 p. 201) has recently (:00) been criticised by M. Maurice 

 Cossmann in an article entitled " Rectifications de nomen- 

 clature," in the following terms : — " M. W. Hoyle a d^crit, 

 en 1885, parmi les Cephalopodes des dragages du 

 " Challenger," un genre Histiopsis, qui fait double emploi 

 avec Histiops {Pet. Maimn., 1869); je propose pour le 

 Cephalopode, la denomination Hoylia nobis." 



M. Cossmann is so polite that it seems almost discour- 

 teous in me to criticise his procedure ; but I trust he will 

 forgive me if I point out that he has himself been guilty 

 of just that sort of changing of names without adequate 

 enquiry which causes such needless complication. When 

 I proposed the name Histiopsis, I was quite aware of the 

 existence of Histiops : it is given in Scudder's " Nomen- 

 clator" ("8'^) and no zoologist who wishes his generic 

 names to have a chance of vitality will neglect to see 

 whether they may not be already contained in that useful 

 index. I was then (and am still) of opinion that the 

 existence of Histiops does not invalidate Histiopsis. It is 

 quite true that they are etymologically similar, but both 

 forms are admissible, and they are not so much alike that 

 there is any danger of confusion, particularly as one is 

 a Mammal and the other a Mollusc. 



In any case M. Cossman's procedure does not mend 

 matters, and greatly as I appreciate the compliment paid 

 by his proposing to rename it after myself, I am con- 

 strained to point out that, if he had looked in the indexes 

 to the Zoological Record, he would have found in the 

 volume for 1885 the name Hoylea de Rochebrune, and 



