SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY—GILL. 457 
If the vertebrates were so much misunderstood by Linné, it may 
naturally be supposed that the invertebrates were equally or still 
less understood. Only one interesting case, however, can be referred 
to. In the ninth edition of the “ Systema Nature” Linné had a 
monotypic genus Salacia (p. 79) with a species named Physalis 
which was evidently a PAysalia as long understood. In the tenth 
edition the name Holothuria was substituted for Salacia and no holo- 
thurians in the modern sense were recognized. In the twelfth edition 
all the species of the former edition were retained, but the diagnosis 
was altered and four holothurians of recent authors were added, and 
thus animals of different subkingdoms or branches were confounded 
in the genus. Now, if we accept the tenth edition of the “ Systema ” 
as the starting of our nomenclature, obviously /Zolothuria can not 
be used as it has been for these many years, and it must be revived 
in place of Physalia, notwithstanding the laments of those who are 
distressed by such a change. The echinoderms now called holo- 
thurians must be renamed. We can imagine the clamor that will 
arise when some one attempts the change.“ 
Another fault of less moment—indeed a matter of taste chiefly— 
was committed by Linné. Very numerous names of plants and ani- 
mals occur in the writings of various ancient authors and were mostly 
unidentifiable in the time of Linné. He drew upon this store with 
utter disregard of the consequences for names of new genera. Most 
of the ancient names can now be identified and associated with the 
species to which they were of old applied, and the incongruity of the 
old and new usage is striking. For example, Dasypus, a Greek name 
of the hare, was perverted to the armadillos; 7rochilus, a name of an 
Egyptian plover, was misused for the humming birds; Ama, a name 
for a tunny, was transferred to the bowfin of North America. There 
was not the slightest justification for such perversion of the names 
in analogy or fitness of any kind; there was no real excuse for it. At 
the commencement of Linné’s career (1737), the learned Professor 
Dillenius, of Oxford, strongly protested against such misusage for 
plant genera, but the sinner persisted in the practice till the end. 
Naturally his scholars and later nomenclators followed the bad ex- 
ample, and systematic zoology is consequently burdened with an 
immense number of the grossest and most misleading misapplications 
of ancient names revolting to the classicist and historian alike. 
* After undisturbed possession of the name for nearly a century and a half, 
two naturalists independently, in the same month (August, 1907), challenged 
the right of the Holothurians to the name Holothuria, and contended that the 
typical holothurians of the moderns should be renamed—Bohadschia for the 
genus and Bohadschiide for the family. T. Gill published his remarks in 
Science for August 9 (p. 185) and F. Poche in the Zoologischer Anzeiger for 
August 20 (p, 106). 
