GENERAL REMARKS. 3 
to note that, according to the accepted classification, these three species belong to three allied 
genera, viz. Madrepora s. s., Porites, and Montipora. On the publication of the 12th Ed. of 
Linnzeus’s work the three species in question were placed in the genus Madrepora. When 
Lamarck in 1808 subdivided the genus Madrepora and instituted a number of new ones, he 
unfortunately retained the name Madrepora for the group of species represented by M. muri- 
cata. The definition of the genus given by Lamarck is not characteristic and is equally 
applicable to the genus Anacropora. The genus, as restricted by him, had much narrower 
limits than those at present recognized and did not include the divisions, or subgenera, Jsopora, 
Trachylopora, &c., species of which were known to him, but were referred to Astrea, Oculina, 
Porites, &e. Ehrenberg, in 1834, was the first to give the genus its present limits, but 
instead of following Lamarck in nomenclature, he proposed a new name Heteropora for the 
genus, on account of the distinction between axial and radial corallites which leads to the 
characteristic mode of colony-formation. All the species which came under his notice, and 
which really come within the genus, were, with one exception, correctly referred to it by 
Ehrenberg. It appears, however, that Blainville * had in 1830 applied the name Heteropora 
to a genus of fossil Polyzoa; and as the name is still in use, and has even been raised to the 
rank of a family, there is no doubt that Heteropora, Ehrenberg, cannot stand. The paper in 
which Ehrenberg proposed the name, although not published until 1834, was communicated 
to the Berlin Academy on March 38rd, 1831, and probably at that time the last volume of the 
‘Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles? had not come under his notice. 
Dana and all subsequent investigators have in effect adopted the name Madrepora as 
synonymous with Heferopora, Ehrb., and have extended the limits of Madrepora, Lamk., 
accordingly. 
The question as to the justification of the use of the generic name Madrepora in its 
present sense rests, then, with Lamarck, and the conclusion arrived at will depend on whether 
the 10th or the 12th edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ is taken as the starting-pomt. I am 
aware that in the rules for Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the British Association, the 
12th edition is taken as the starting-point; but, at any rate, so far as the Zoophytes are 
concerned, I see no sufficient reason for doing so. Linneus could not be expected to have 
any very accurate knowledge of Zoophytes, and it appears to me unjustifiable to adopt an 
attitude towards his work which would not be tolerated in any other case. The genus 
Madrepora was established in the 10th edition, and the type of the genus which now bears 
that name was then referred to Millepora; evidently, then, Lamarck ought not to have 
retained the name in its present sense, but to have applied it to some typical section of the 
original genus. As, however, he has been followed by all subsequent authors, with the 
exception of Ehrenberg, it is clear that a change made now which would involve the 
institution of a new name would not serve any good purpose. We must therefore regard 
Madrepora s. s. as a generic name which, like Holothuria, depends for its justification on 
custom rather than on priority +. 
* ¢ Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,’ vol. 1x. 1830, p. 381. 
+ Of. F. J. Bell, “A Test Case for the Law of Priority,” Ann. Mag. N. H. 1891, vol. viii. p. 108. 
B2 
