450 On the Oenera Cyclostoma and Pomatias. 



or genus, cannot be applied to another, otherwise the door 

 would be opened to confusion." Now here Prof. Sollas has 

 laid down a rule of his own nowhere else to be found. 

 Bowerbank affords a right and Sollas an erroneous interpre- 

 tation of Rule 10 ; and I notice that Schulze and Lendenfeld, 

 in a later paper, have recognized this and again restored 

 Bowerbank's name *. 



3. Normania, Boeck, is in use, having been just again em- 

 ployed by Prof. G. O. Sars in his beautiful new work on the 

 Crustacea Amphipodaof Norway. That name must bechanged. 

 There is little doubt that Sars fell into the error of retaining 

 it from referring to Bowerbank only or to " Scudder," who 

 erroneously gives the date of Normania, Bow., as 1875 instead 

 of 1868 ; and had the former date been correct, B:»eck's genus 

 would have had precedence of Bowerbank's, but not of 

 Brady's. This last, however, Sars knew to be- only a 

 synonym of his own genus Loxoconcha. 



Thus we see that Bowerbank, Schulze and Lendenfeld, 

 and G. 0. Sars rightly apply, and that Sollas wrongly applies 

 the rule. 



I will not cite the very many instances in which well- 

 established generic names have been of late wrongly, for a 

 time at least, supplanted, and useless generic names thus 

 added to our nomenclature. The fact is that ' Scudder'a 

 Nomenclator,' instead of being of service to science, is in this 

 way frequently used to its detriment. Authors consult it to 

 see if a generic name has been previously used. If it has 

 been, many of them at once proceed to coin for the second or 

 later use a new generic title or supplant it by some other ; 

 whereas the later employment of the generic name ought to 

 have been retained if the earlier is not in use. 



Inquiry should always be made as to whether the name 

 applied in previous instance or instances is in use before the 

 later name is changed. 



One word more. I have been surprised to find that many 

 of the younger naturalists are totally ignorant of the very 

 existence of the Association Rules. For the information of 

 those who may need it I may therefore state that they are to 

 be found in the British Association Reports of 1842, and as 

 last revised in the Report of 1865 (1866) ; and separate copies 

 of the Rules can be procured at the offices of the Association, 

 25 Albemarle Street. At least I believe that this is the 

 case. At the Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting in 1889, at the 

 request of several young zoologists, as Vice-President of 



• r. E. Schulze and R. von Lendenfeld, ' Uubcr die JBezeichnung der 

 Spongiennadchi/ ]88n. p. .31. 



