472 Miscellaneous. 



astacus (Linn.) " could be upheld. The instances are numerous in 

 which authors, in subdividing a genus, have borrowed the name of 

 one of its old species and bestowed it upon one of the new genera, 

 and in these it is natural to suppose that the species which supplied 

 the name was regarded as the type. In Dana's Ankulus tijpicus 

 this view finds definite expression. To the Ilomartis vuhjaris of 

 Milne-Edwards it is an additional objection that that distinguished 

 author adopts for the generic name of the lobster the specific name 

 which Linnaeus applied to the crawfish. This would not of itself 

 in auj' way invalidate the term Homarus, but it may contribute to 

 our satisfaction in finding it on other grounds untenable. Now, 

 when we turn from these examples to regard the proposal to call 

 the Swedish crayfish Astactis ustams (Linn.), it really looks as if 

 Mr. Pocock thought that Gronovius and Pabricius had borrowed 

 the generic name Astacus from the Linneau species Cancer astacus. 

 Yet the third volume of Seba's ' Thesaurus ' bears the very same 

 date as the tenth edition of Linnseus's ' iSystema,' and was probably 

 in print before it, though perhaps not issued till later ; and this 

 volume of Seba contains many species of Astacus, but not the Cancer 

 astacus of Linnaeus. The zeal for giving paramount authority to 

 that unlucky species is peculiarly misplaced : neither in the genus 

 nor in the species has it any decent right to the title Astacus. As 

 Mr. Walter Faxon showed in 1S;S4, through more than three 

 centuries of modern science its accepted specific name almost without 

 interruption has been jluviutiUs. The genus Astacus, in the wide 

 and vague extension given to it by naturalists earlier than Leach, was 

 well known long before Linnaeus was born, and nothing could be 

 much more absurd than to give him, of all men, special rights over 

 it because both geuerically and specifically he misnamed the Swedish 

 crayfish. 



In opening this controversy Professor Bell accused me of 

 "courage" for having, as he supposed, in my ' History of Crustacea' 

 altered the Latin names of the common crayfish and the common 

 lobster. In defending Astacus gawmarus as the name of the 

 Euro])ean lobster and Potamohius JluviatUis as the name of one of 

 the European crayfishes I have sheltered my timidity behind 

 successive authorities of the British Museum itself. Professor Bell 

 was writing apparently in the interests of conservatism, to defend 

 accepted names against innovation. His colleague comes forward 

 to help him, and devises a principle which would make the time- 

 honoured Maia squinado and many other well-known names unstable, 

 and would almost justify one in borrowing Professor Bell's indignant 

 eloquence to declare that it " will throw into confusion not only 

 carcinological literature, but every text-book in every language 

 under the sun." This will it do without in any way touching the 

 position of the " priority purists " or giving tliem that " short shrift " 

 their censor has so long wished them. One is tempted to believe 

 that when, on the Kalends of March, the two augurs met in the 

 corridors of the ^Museum, instead of rushing into Mr. Pocock's arms 

 in a transport of gratitude, the professor must have eyed him with 

 a glance of scornful suspicion and exclaimed — 



" Non tali au.vilio nee defensoribus istis." 



