384 Miscellaneous. 



Thus the Ooniaster of Gray is in no sense the Goniaster of 

 Agasaiz, and the species he put into it appear in Sladen's ' Chal- 

 lenger ' Report under the names Pentac/onaster semilunatus, Linck 

 (an indefensible specific name), = Goniaster cuspidatus, Gray*; at 

 p. 266 it is stated that Pentagonaster {Goniaster', Gray) rec/idaris 

 *' should be " discarded ; and Goniaster Scbce is discarded, being 

 nowhere referred to t. 



And what has become of the unfortunate Goniaster in the most 

 recent writers? It finds a place in Perrier thus : — 



" XXVIII. Genre. Goniaster, sens, nov, 

 " Goniaster ohtusangidus, Lamarck. Ocean Indien (?)." 



Here is a new genus Goniaster, Perrier, and in no sense whatever is 

 it Goniaster, Agassiz. Sladen follows Perrier. 



By the laws of nomenclature Goniaster must be I'etained so as 

 to include at least one of the species which Agassiz placed in it. 

 Which, then, of Gray's three genera — for we must go back to that 

 time — must be made a synonym of the earlier genus. Luckily there 

 can be no doubt upon the question. On the very same day, Dec. ], 

 1840, on which the second part of Gray's paper, which contained 

 the genera in question, w^as published, appeared also Goniaster in 

 pt. 3 of Forbes's work, containing one and one only of Agassiz's 

 species in it; and the synonymy thus becomes Goniaster, Agassiz, = 

 Hippasteria, Gray. The second species which Forbes had placed in 

 the genus became removable that same day, to be put into the 

 genus Porania established by Gray. My own description of Goni- 

 aster in 1865 was advisedly drawn up to restrict its application to 

 this one species, Goniaster phrygianus (2a,VQ\m^) = Goniaster equestris, 

 Agassiz. I at that time carefully weighed all the circumstances 

 connected with the nomenclature. 



Agassiz would no doubt have preferred that his name should be 

 used with his first species as the type, for in recording a list of 

 Gray's genera J, without further observation, he gives them thus : — 



"■Pentaceros, Link, Gr. (Goniaster, Ag.) ; Anthenia, Gr. ; Hippas- 

 ieria, Gr. ; Goniaster, Ag. (Gr.)." 



This clearly indicated that he regarded Pentaceros as his Goni- 

 aster, that Gray might do what he liked about Anthenia and Hippas- 

 teria, but that Goniaster, Gr., was not his Goniaster. However, 

 we must take facts as they are and as they rest on Forbes's action. 



3. Use of the Generic Name Palmipes. 



Professor Jeffrey Bell can scarcely have weighed the word Ansero- 

 poda, Nardo, or he could not have suggested that it should take 

 the place of Palmipes. It is the very climax of barbarity, a monster 



* Gray writes cuspida?i<s, and quotos Linck as using cuspida^ws ; but 

 Linck's word was cuspidafe. 



t The Goniodiscus Sebte, M. & T., is another thing. 

 I Mon. d'Echin. lir. ii. p. -3. 



