Miscellaneous. 121 



distinct genus by Mr. Leach, under the name of Keplirops, from 

 the kidney-shaped eye." Then follows the account of "Sp. 1. 

 Oainmarus,'' and two pages further on come the accounts of " Sp. 2. 

 Fluviatilis" and " Sp. 3. Norvegicus," the synonymy of the last being 

 " Cancer norivegicus of Liune, Astacus norwegkus of Pennant, and 

 Neplirops norvegica, Leach's IISS." Thus Leach's genus Astacus^ 

 in 181 -i, contained three species, not two only as Prof. Bell wishes 

 us to believe. The next genus is " XLII. Thalassina." Nqihrops is 

 nowhere included in the count. When considering the question 

 some years ago, I was clearly of opinion that Leach did not here 

 establish the genus Nephrops, and, to pursue the autobiographical 

 method, I am of the same opinion still, ^o doubt he gives a 

 strong hint that he thinks it ought to be established. But the 

 contumel)' and struggle for existence to which many of his now 

 accepted genera were in their earlier days exposed may explain 

 his reluctance in this instance to do what he thought right. In 

 the Trans, Linn. Soc. vol. xi. 1815, and in part 7 of his ' Mala- 

 costraca Podophthalmata Britannige,' published Jan. 1, 181G, he 

 takes courage and definitely adopts the genus Nephrops, the date 

 of which should therefore be neither 1819 nor 181-1, but 1815, 

 as it has been already some time back correctly given by the 

 American writer. Dr. F. H. Herrick. 



Next he says " ' AsUicus, Leach, 1814,' on the same page [Hist. 

 Crust. 202], should be altered to — well, it is hard to say ; 

 Leach's Astacus of 1814 is the Astacus of Gronovius (1764) as 

 emended by Fabricius and others, and by Leach's removal of 

 A. norvegicus." This is led up to by an earlier paragraph as 

 follows : — " Leach's genus Astacus, in 1814, contained two species 

 — A. gammarus and A. Jluviatilis. The former stood first, and is 

 therefore, I presume, regarded as the ' type species ' ; on this I 

 would remark that the generic name Astacus was invented by 

 Gronovius in 1704 and that his first species is clearly Cancer 

 Jluviatilis of Linnaeus." 



On this / woxild remark that in 1814 Leach had not removed 

 A. norvegicus from Astacus, but made it the third species of that 

 genus, and that the generic name Astacus was not invented by 

 Gronovius in 1764, and that it was not invented by Gronovius at 

 all. Seeing that he was already using it in 1760, he could not 

 have invented it in 1764. It is amusing to find Professor Bell 

 quoting such a date without the least intimation that so lately as 

 1890 (see Geol. Mag., Dec. 1896, pp. 557-8) high officials in his 

 own museum would have disputed its relevancy. At that time 

 1766 was still regarded there as the beginning of all things in zoo- 

 logical nomenclature. With good reason an earlier date for that 

 beginning is now finding acceptance, but no decisive ordinance on 

 the subject has yet been promulgated, so that professors and official 

 dignitaries above all ought to deal tenderly with outsiders help- 

 lessly suffering from this " centre of wobbulation." Waiving, how- 

 ever, any appeal ad misericonliam, we turn to the selected authority 

 Gronovius, and then a wonder comes to light, or what might have 

 been a wonder and might have been a discovery, had it not been 



Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 6. Vol. xix. 9 



