246 Mr. W. J. Sollas on the 



G. zetlandica, Johnst., or that he had described the orange- 

 coloured variety" of A. digitatum, Johnst. (Brit. Zooph. ed. 2, 

 vol. i. p. 174). The latter appears the most probable." The 

 italics are mine ; and it is scarcely conceivable that Bowerbank 

 can have written this after what he said in 1866, and after an 

 examination of Fleming's type specimens, which he then 

 stated were Geodia zetlandica. It will be observed also that 

 Bowerbank says nothing here of the presence of the tririd 

 spicules and globates, which Fleming mentions as occurring 

 in his Cydoniinn, and which by themselves are sufficient to 

 prove that Fleming can have had no other than a Geodine 

 sponge before him. 



In 1869 Carter* described a new species of Cydonium as 

 Geodia {Cydonium, Gray) arabica; and he added afterwards 

 that his G. arabica, being closely allied to G. zetlandica, 

 appears under Dr. Gray's third genus, viz. that termed 

 il Cydonium." 



In 1870 O. Schmidt t gave an account of the characters of 

 the Geodinidaj, added some remarks on the genus Geodia, 

 Sdt.j and established a new genus, Pyxitis. This new genus 

 is characterized by the occurrence in most of its members of a 

 large body-cavity, and in all by the localization of a pore-area 

 for the outflowing water-currents — the very characters seized 

 upon by Lamarck as typical of his Geodia ! But, worse than 

 this, Lamarck's type Geodia gibberosa is appropriated by 

 Schmidt as the type of his genus Pyxitis. It is certain that 

 this kind of nomenclature will never be tolerated by impartial 

 naturalists. A genus may be subdivided any number of 

 times that may be necessary ; but it is always understood that 

 that subdivision which retains the type species shall also 

 retain the original name \. If Schmidt thought it necessary 

 to distinguish those Geodine sponges in which "durch Local" 



sirung eines Porenfeldes fur die Ausstromung so bestimmt 

 &c," from others in which such is not the case, he might, 

 with some show of justice, have given a new name to the 

 latter, but certainly not to the former, which belong inalien- 

 ably to Lamarck's genus Geodia. This distinction, made by 

 Schmidt in 1870, existed, however, in our nomenclature as 

 early as the year 1828, the date of Fleming's genus, and was 

 again distinctly enforced by Gray in 1867, three years prior 

 to Schmidt's publication of it. Yet Schmidt, Avho, when 

 Nardo is in question, is such a champion of priority, calmly 

 ignores the observations of both his predecessors and pro- 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, vol. iv. p. 4, pi. i. figs. 9-16. 

 t Spong. Fauna d. atlantischen Gebietes, p. 08. 

 X See Rule § 4 of the Stricklandian Code. 



