Hjstricrinus, Hinde^ versus Arthroacantha, Williams, 271 



Fig. 3. Schizoporella unicornis, Johnston. Normal. 



Fig. 4. Schizoporella atrofusca, Busk. 



Fig. 5. Schizoporella atrofusca, form labiosa. 



Fig. 6. Schizoporella serratimargo, n. sp. Marginal cells. 6 a. Mature 



cells and ovicell. 6 b. Marginal avicularium. 6 c. Oral valve. 



6 d. Nat. size. 

 Fig. 7. Schizoporella Pallasii, Heller. 7 a. Marginal cell, showing sinus. 

 Fig. 8. Schizoporella auriculata, Hassall. Showing ordinary form of 



orifice. 8 a. Variety spathidata. 8 b. Avicularium of this 



variety in early stage. 



XXVII. — Hystricriniis, Hinde^ versus Arthroacantha, 

 Williams: a Question of Nomenclature. By Geoege 

 Jennings Hinde, Ph.D./F.G.S. 



In the ' Annals ' for March 1885, p. 158, I proposed the 

 term Hystricrinus for a genus of Crinoids with movable spines 

 in place of Arthroacantha.^ Williams *, on the ground of the 

 resemblance of this latter terra to Arthr acanthus^ Schmarda f, 

 which had been previously employed for a genus of Rotatoria. 

 The essential similarity of these terms seemed to me to briiif 

 the case so very clearly within the tenth rule of the British 

 Association Committee J, that " a name should be changed 

 when previously applied to another group which still retains 

 itj" that it did not seem necessary to advance any arguments 

 to justify the course adopted. But Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

 Springer, in part iii. of their lately issued " Revision of the 

 Palaiocrinoidea " §, p. 116, reject my term Hi/stricrinus smd 

 reinstate Williams's name^ on the ground that ^^Arthroacantha 

 is a different word from Arthracanthus although of the same 

 etymology and of similar construction, and there are other 

 names of recognized standing in natural history which bear a 

 closer resemblance to prior names than this " (p. 117). 



As the question is of more than the mere personal interest 

 as to who should be the author of a generic name, and as it 

 should be decided in accordance with the rules made to pre- 

 vent confusion in scientific literature, and v/ith the general 

 practice of reputable scientific authors of the present day, I 

 venture to state the reasons which appeared to me to be 

 sufficient not only to justify, but to necessitate, the substitu- 

 tion of another term for that of Professor Williams. I may 

 first premise that the remarks which may be made upon the 

 invalidity of Prof. Williams's name are not intended in any 



• ' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,' 1883, p. 84. 



t Denkschr. k.-k. Aknd. d. Wiss. Wien, vol. vii. 1854, p. 12. 



\ ' Report of the Thirty-fifth Meeting of the British Association for 

 the Advancement of Science,' Birmingham, I860, p. 33. 



§ ' Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,' 

 July 1885, p. 116 (separate copy). 



19* 



