Genera Cyclostoraa and Pomatias. 449 



To apply this : granted, for the sake of ar'^ument, that all 

 which Mr. Newton has written is correct, still Gyclosloma is 

 the title of this very genus, because if the genus Cycloatoma^ 

 Lamarck, is inadmissible, his genus being blotted out, the 

 next title given to the genus must be adopted, and that is 

 Cydostoma, Draparnaud ; so that we should simply have 

 CyclostomOj Draparnaud, instead of Cychstoma^ Lamarck — 

 and indeed most authors write Cyclostoma^ Drap. 



It is desirable to give another and fuller instance illustrative 

 of the application of Rule 10, and I hope I may be excused if 

 that taken has reference to the genera named after myself, 

 inasmuch as these genera happen to furnish the fullest example 

 of the right and wrong applications of the rule — three right 

 and one wrong — which at this moment occurs to my mind. 



There have been three genera, thus : — 



\. Normama^ G. S. Brady (Crustacea Ostracoda), 186-5. 



2. Normania, Bowerbank (Spongida), 1868. 



3. Normania J A. Boeck (Crustacea Amphipoda), 1870. 



1. Brady's genus was obsolete at the time of its publica- 

 tion. Prof. G. O. Sars having just before given the same form 

 another name. 



2. When Bowerbank described his genus Normania — which 

 dates from 1868 (" Last Report Shetland Dredging," Brit. 

 Assoc. Rep. 1868, p. 328), and not from 1874, the date of 

 Bowerbank's Brit. Spongiadae, vol. iii. p. 258, as a reference 

 to that work would lead the reader to suppose — he stated as 

 follows : — " A genus Normania was established by Mr. G. S. 

 Brady in 1866 for a section of Crustacea Copepoda''^ {vide 

 Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. p. 382), but that title cannot be 

 adopted, as the Normania of Brady is identical with Loxo- 

 concha of G. O. Sars, which was founded a few months 

 previously [vide G. 0. Sars, * Oversigt af Norges Marine 

 Ostracoder,' 1865, p. 61, and G. S. Brady, Trans. Linn. 

 Soc. vol. xxvi. 1868, p. 432)." But Professor SoUas, in his 

 " Report on the Tetractinellida of the ' Challenger,' " 1889, 

 after expressing his regret at being obliged to reject the name 

 Normania^ Bowerbank, and substituting for it Foscillastra, 

 n. n., writes: — "True, Bowerbank remarks that Brady's 

 genus Normania, which has precedence, cannot stand ; but 

 this makes no difference, since according to convention, a 

 discarded name which has ceased to be used for one species, 



* "Crustacea Copepoda" is a mistake for "Crustacea Ostracoda." 

 There is a peniis in the former, Xnrmauella, n. S. Hriidy, but tiint is a 

 dilFerent name and dates onlv from 18sU. 



