Miscellaneous. 353 



Museum, and agreement on this point to exist amongst the members 

 of the staff. Happily nothing could be further from the truth. 

 There may be some subjects about which unanimity could be 

 found, but nomenclature is certainly not one of them. 



The Lobster and the Crayfish: a Reply. 

 By the Rev. THOMAS R. R. STEBBING, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S. 



Pallas, in his Spicilegia Zoologica,' fasc. ix. p. 81, speaks of a 

 crayfish as Astacus dauuricus. Since this was in 1772, Dr. Arnold 

 Ortmann, in a courteous letter, asks what bearing this may be 

 thought to have on the claim of Fabricius in 1775 to rank as the 

 first Linnean authority for Astacus. Dr. Ortmann indicates in 

 advance his acceptance of the appropriate answer. Pallas is neither 

 defining a genus nor even instituting anew species, for he speaks of 

 Astacus dauuricus as a variety of the common crayfish, and proceeds 

 to give a " Descriptio Cancri dauurici," in which he says that 

 " Forma atque proportione Astaco nostrati minori persimilis est." 

 It is evident that he is using Astacus only as a customary designa- 

 tion for a subdivision of the still-maintained genus Cancer, and by 

 his reference to a minor Astacus he implies a major species, which 

 would have had preference as type if at that time any question 

 had arisen as to the proper type species of Astacus. In his index 

 dauuricus becomes dauricus, but under neither spelling can it become 

 the type of a genus which by the very terms of the description 

 possessed an earlier species. 



From Pallas I must return to Professor Bell and endeavour to 

 deal in orderly method with the six points of his crushing reply. 



(i.) In regard to the date of Nephrops, he is surprised at my 

 supposing that he referred to Leach's article " Crustaceology," 

 instead of to Leach's paper in vol. xi. of the Linnean ' Transactions.' 

 Yet what else could or can be supposed, since he himself gave the 

 date 1814, which applies to the former and does not apply to the 

 latter ? To be sure the " Crustaceology " is unsigned, and an 

 edition of it may have appeared in 1813, but, seeing that Leach 

 claimed it as his own on the very first day of January, 1815, it is 

 rather my turn to be surprised that Professor Bell should refer to 

 it as " an anonymous article of uncertain date." 



(ii.) That the genera of Gronovius " are as good as those of" 

 Brisson may or may not be true, but that the particular genus 

 Astacus was instituted by Gronovius, or was so defined or so used 

 by Gronovius as to give him any title to be the authority for it, may 

 be with confidence denied. Besides, the whole question turns on 

 the choice of a type species, and the Gronovian species are admittedly 

 out of court. 



(iii.) That 1758 has long been held by many naturalists to be 

 " the zoological ab urbe condita of binominal chronology " I was not 

 unaware ; but in 1890 the authorities of the British Museum had 

 not yet endorsed that excellent opinion. To the question whether 

 I know " that 1758 has been well called" by the terms of the above 

 quotation, my answer would be in the negative, for, though the 



A &. Mnn N. Hist. Sp.r. fi. Vol. xix. 25 



