198 On the Organism of the Siphonophora. 



vert the natural system, based upon genealogy, by the dislo- 

 cation and repetition of related members, into an artificial 

 mosaic patchwork. If the example here given by Haeckel 

 were to be accepted and imitated we should soon come to have 

 an analogous alteration of the classification of the Cestodea, 

 for example, put forward as a consistent advance, in accord- 

 ance with the spirit of the times. Following the present 

 pattern distinct families would first of all be established for 

 the Proglottides and Strobila-forms, and then also for the 

 Cysticerci, and by the analogy of the dislocation and multi- 

 plication of organs divided into families, genera, and species. 

 It is difficult to find a reasonable ground which can have 

 induced the author to make so inconceivable a logical mistake. 

 Was it conformity of arrangement that ruled the scheme of 

 classification ? The other orders commence with mono- 

 gastric families, the Physonectse with the Circalidge and 

 Athoridge, the Cystonect^ with the Cystalidaj, the Disco- 

 nectse are exclusively monogastric Siphonophora, and so 

 monogastric families must come at the head of the Calyco- 

 nectae. However, the unequal values of the monogastric 

 families ought to have attracted attention, inasmuch as in 

 those orders they represent the simplest and, in development, 

 the oldest genera, whereas the Eudoxidse and Ersaiidee, as 

 metameric fragments equivalent to the so-called Prodoxiae of 

 the polygastric Apolemiadje, represent the final terms of the 

 evolution. 



How far the changes relating to the nomenclature of the 

 genera and families are justified shall not be further discussed 

 here, only a deviation from the old-established practice which 

 Haeckel has permitted himself, as in previous writings, in his 

 System of the Siphonophora, may be mentioned and rejected 

 as inadmissible. This relates to the perfectly new proceeding 

 of striking out the name of the author in the case of already 

 known species established by previous authors on the ground 

 of a change in the generic designation, placing in its stead 

 the name of the author of the new genus. This is a licence 

 which, so far as I know, no other naturalist allows himself, 

 one of Haeckel's peculiarities which, in conjunction with the 

 principle of splitting the genera into new ones upon unim- 

 portant difi'erences previously used only for the distinction of 

 species, opens to the " mihi " of the systematist a glimpse of 

 a new and exceedingly fertile field. 



