2r)2 Miscellaneous. 



same Station. Unfortunately the Station of the Astoroid Calveria 

 hystr'ix was never given ; the only locality meiitioaed by the 

 authors was the " Shetland Channel." Now Station No. 57, which 

 is that of the type-specimen of Korethraster hispichis, is always 

 quoted as in the " Paeroe Channel," and these are the words on the 

 British Museum label. It appears, however, from internal evidence 

 that these two names were applied indifferently by Carpenter, 

 Jeffreys, and Thomson to what the last mentioned (' Depths of the 

 Sea,' p. lOS) called the " deep channel between Fieroo and 

 Shetland.'' Mr. \V. Garataug tells me that this channel might well 

 be termed either the Shetland Channel or the Pieroe Channel, 

 Therefore, the statement that the type-specimen of the Asteroid 

 Calveria hi/striv came from the Cold area and from the Shetland 

 Channel applied equally to the type-specimen of Korethraster 

 hispidus ; so that on these gromids there is no objection to con- 

 sidering the two specimens identical. 



Having now traced the liistory of certain names, it remains for 

 lis to apply to them the usual rules of nomenclature. 



Calveriaster obviously disappears, 



" Cut off even in the blossoms of [its] sin, 

 Unhousel'd, disappointed, unaneled." 



Should Korethraster hispidus follow it, as being a synonym of 

 Calveria hystrixl Although by a lengthy argument it has been 

 possible to prove this identity, still it is sincerely to be hoped that 

 all zoologists will agree as to the inadequacy of the original descrip- 

 tion of Calveria by Carpenter, Jeffreys, and Thomson. Only by 

 such agreement can we avoid resuscitating that name for the 

 Asteroid, now that the question has once been raised b)' the action 

 of Professors Agassiz, Delage, and Herouard. But, even though 

 the name Calveria hystrix be not accepted in place of Korethraster 

 hispidus, its prior use for an Asteroid allied to Ptcraster must, by 

 the rules of nomenclature, bar its application to any other animal : 

 Calveria hystrix cannot be used to denote the Echinothurid, as 

 Professor Agassiz has most justly pointed out. So long as syste- 

 matists follow that eminent authority in considering the species in 

 question congeneric with Asthenosoma varium, they will be under 

 no difficulty regarding the generic name. But the rule " Once a 

 homonym, always a homonym " affects the specific component of the 

 name no less than the generic. Therefore the combination Astheno- 

 soma hi/st)'ix is invalid. Por those who, with Jeffrey Bell (B.M. 

 Catal. Brit. Echinoderms, p. 143), consider Calveria fenestrata, 

 Thomson, as identical with Calveria hystrix, Thomson, there is no 

 diflficulty here either, since they will simply adopt the name 

 Asthenosoma fenestratum. Ou the other hand, those who, with 

 Mortensen, make Calveria fenesirata the type of a distinct genus, 

 and who attempt to make Calveria hystrix, Thomson, the type of 

 another genus, are bound to find a new name for both geniis and 

 species, Being myself quite unqualified to pronounce an opinion 

 upon the validity of these proposed genera, I shall refrain from 

 giving a name to a conception aboiit which I know nothing. 



British Museum (Nat. Hist.), Jan. K»0 i. 



