Miscellaneous. 109 



is, an Echinoderra, a Hydroid, and a Tunicate. Let us grant that, 

 notwithstanding the existence of the tenth edition, which woukl 

 indicate that an Echinoderm at any rate is not the type of the 

 genus, " the evidence as to the original type of the genus is not 

 perfectly clear and indisputable ; " " then the person," says the B. A. 

 rule, " who first subdivides the genus may affix the original name 

 to any portion of it at his discretion." 



The first writer later than 1767 was Pallas, who writes (1774) 

 (Spic. Zool. s. V, Holothnrium zonariuin) : — 



" Holothuriorura genus a Linuaeo ultima in editione si/stematis 

 miro mode eompilatum et a natura alienum factum est, quum tamen 

 illud in editione decima systematis satis bene institutum videretur. 

 Eoquc magis miror banc III. Viri levitatem, cum sole meridiauo 

 clarior esse debeat, cuivis in studio Molluscorum initiate, affinitas 

 Holothurii frondosi, Fhantapodis, Hi/drae Bohadschii, atque JJol. 

 pentactis (Syst. ed. xii. p. 1089. 109U. 1091. sp. 1. 2. 3. 8.) cum 

 Actiniis Brownii, (geuere etiam a Liunaeo adoptato, maximeque 

 naturali) ad quod istas Holothurias Linnaeo nunc dictas plerasque 

 dudum retuli in Miscellaneis Zoologicis. p. 153." 



Ilolothiirium zonarizim is an Ascidian, and some other name 

 must be found for Holothurians. 



But it will be remembered that Brisson's genera are allowed by 

 the B. A. rules ; was there no contemporary of Liiinasus who used 

 Holotlmria for an Echinoderm ? Yes, there was Bishop Gunnerus 

 (Act. Stockholm, 1767, p. 115), who discusses the characters of the 

 genus Holothuria, and is (juoted by Linnceus himself. 



Yet again, if we accept the testimony of the Bishop, who wrote 

 in 1767, we must accept that of Pallas, who wrote in 1766 *, and 

 who fully described and discussed Actinia doliolum. Now this is an 

 Echinoderm, a Holothuroid, a Colochiriis. 



.". Actinia is the correct generic name of a " Holothurian," and 

 not of a 8ea- Anemone. 



Here, again, Euclid might be appropriately quoted. 



So that, after all, obedience to the laws of the B. A. leaves us in 

 a worse plight than before. 



It is clear that two courses only are open here : one is to adopt 

 Mr. Pocock's heroic but perfectly safe challenge to the skies, and 

 enforce the changes required by strict adherence to the laws of 

 priority ; and the other is — if I, too, may quote from a Latin writer : 

 " Spectatum admissi risum toneatis, amici ? " — to avow a dislike to 

 appearing foolish more often than one can help, and retain Holo- 

 thuria and Actinia for groups to which they have been applied for 

 more than a century. 



To enforce the rule of priority here would be to strain it beyond 

 breaking-point; where that .point comes must, I suppose, be a 

 matter for individual discretion ; but in this case, T believe, zoologists 

 will credit me with showing a little common-sense. 



* Miscell. Zool. p. 152. 



