GENEEAL EEMARKS. 3 



to note that, according to the accepted classification, these three species belong to three allied 

 genera, viz. Madrepora s. s., Pontes, and Montipora. On the publication of the 12th Ed. of 

 Linnffius's work the three species in question were placed in the genus Madrepora. When 

 Lamarck in 1808 subdivided the genus Madrepora and instituted a number of new ones, he 

 unfortunately retained the name Madrepora for the group of species represented by M. muri- 

 cata. The definition of the genus given by Lamarck is not characteristic and is equally 

 applicable to the genus Anacropora. The genus, as restricted by him, had much narrower 

 limits than those at present recognized and did not include the divisions, or subgenera, Isopora, 

 Trachylopora, Sec, species of which were known to him, but were referred to Astrcea, Oculina, 

 Pontes, &c. Ehrenberg, in 1834, was the first to give the genus its present limits, but 

 instead of following Lamarck in nomenclature, he proposed a new name Heteropora for the 

 genus, on account of the distinction between axial and radial corallites which leads to the 

 characteristic mode of colony-formation. All the species which came under his notice, and 

 which really come within the genus, were, with one exception, correctly referred to it by 

 Ehrenberg. It appears, however, that Blainville * had in 1830 applied the name Heteropora 

 to a genus of fossil Polyzoa ; and as the name is still in use, and has even been raised to the 

 rank of a family, there is no doubt that Heteropora, Ehrenberg, cannot stand. The paper in 

 which Ehrenberg proposed the name, although not published until 1834, was communicated 

 to the Berlin Academy on March 3rd, 1831, and probably at that time the last volume of the 

 ' Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles ' had not come under his notice. 



Dana and all subsequent investigators have in effect adopted the name Madrepora as 

 synonymous with Heteropora, Ehrb., and have extended the limits of Madrepora, Lamk., 

 accordingly. 



The question as to the justification of the use of the generic name Madrepora in its 

 present sense rests, then, with Lamarck, and the conclusion arrived at will depend on whether 

 the 10th or the 12th edition of the ' Systema Naturae ' is taken as the starting-point. I am 

 aware that in the rules for Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the British Association, the 

 12th edition is taken as the starting-point ; but, at any rate, so far as the Zoophytes are 

 concerned, I see no sufficient reason for doing so. LinnaBUS could not be expected to have 

 any very accurate knowledge of Zoophytes, and it appears to me unjustifiable to adopt an 

 attitude towards his work which would not be tolerated in any other case. The genus 

 Madrepora was established in the 10th edition, and the type of the genus which now bears 

 that name was then referred to Millepora ; evidently, then, Lamarck ought not to have 

 retained the name in its present sense, but to have applied it to some typical section of the 

 original genus. As, however, he has been followed by all subsequent authors, with the 

 exception of Ehrenberg, it is clear that a change made now which would involve the 

 institution of a new name would not serve any good purpose. We must therefore regard 

 Madrepora s. s. as a generic name which, like Holothuria, depends for its justification on 

 custom rather than on priority f. 



* ' Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,' vol. Ix. 1830, p. 381. 



t Cf. F. J. Bell, " A Test Case for the Law of Priority," Ann. Mag. N. H. 1891, vol. viii. p. 108. 



b2 



