1896. NOTES AND COMMENTS. 77 



that when the literature is found it cannot be understood. As to our 

 remedy, we have already proposed it. We have said, Let the list of 

 species be drafted by a body having some kind of authority, and let 

 the zoologists of the world agree to accept these names and to make 

 the publication of the list the date before which they will not go {see 

 Natural Science, vol. viii., p. 218, April, 1896). (3) There are 

 man}' people, to whom the term speciesmonger certainly can not be 

 applied, who desire to see the name of the author attached to the 

 name of his species, since it suggests to those unacquainted with 

 systematic literature the place in which the original description may 

 possibly be found. On the other hand, there is no room for doubt 

 that it is this continual repetition of authors' names that leads a 

 certain class of minds to suppose that there is some honour and glory 

 to be gained by attaching new names to innocent animals and plants. 

 This vanity is at the bottom of much hurried and imperfect work, 

 the disgusting race for priority, and of the desire to disinter long- 

 buried names. The suggestion that a date should be attached to the 

 name is not open to the same objection as is affixing authors' names, 

 while it is just as likely to be of service to the ordinary naturalist, 

 since he can at once turn to the name in the Zoological Record for that 

 year. Of course, it would be impossible to give so exact a date as 

 Professor Herrera gives in the instance he quotes ; at the same time, 

 if the custom were adopted, we should probably be better able to 

 insist on authors and editors giving the correct date of their publica- 

 tions, which is at present an exceedingly difficult matter to determine. 

 The suggestion, therefore, strikes us as an excellent one, and we may 

 point out that a slight extension of it might have the further effect of 

 steadying nomenclature, since two names that were the same so far 

 as their orthography was concerned could be adequately distinguished 

 by means of the date. This is, we believe, the ver}- practical plan 

 that is pursued by the Kennel Club, the only condition being that the 

 same name shall not be used twice within five years. If zoologists 

 are not above taking a hint from the kennel and the course, it is 

 possible that in some such suggestions as these we may find a way 

 out of all our troubles. 



The Larva of Leiicosolenia. 

 We have received from the Royal Society the sheets of an 

 interesting communication made by Professor Ray Lankester on 

 behalf of Mr. E. A. Minchin. Mr. Minchin is one of the few Oxford 

 Fellows who, instead of making their fellowship the foundation of a 

 quiet domesticity, have spent their time almost continuously in 

 research. The contribution now before us deals with the very 

 interesting amphiblastula larva, specimens of which in all stages 

 Mr. Minchin obtained, in the case of Leiicosolenia vaviaUlis, at Roscoff. 

 The minute larvae leave the mother sponge by the osculum, and at 

 once rise to the surface of the water, where they swim for about 



