198 On the Organism of the Siphonophora. 
vert the natural system, based upon genealogy, by the dislo- 
cation and repetition of related members, into an artificial 
mosaic patchwork. If the example here given by Haeckel 
were to be accepted and imitated we should soon come to have 
an analogous alteration of the classification of the Cestodea, 
for example, put forward as a consistent advance, in accord- 
ance with the spirit of the times. Following the present 
pattern distinct families would first of all be established for 
the Proglottides and Strobila-forms, and then also for the 
Cysticerci, and by the analogy of the dislocation and multi- 
plication of organs divided into families, genera, and species. 
It is difficult to find a reasonable ground which can have 
induced the author to make so inconceivable a logical mistake. 
Was it conformity of arrangement that ruled the scheme of 
classification? The other orders commence with mono- 
gastric families, the Physonecte with the Circalida and 
Athoride, the Cystonecte with the Cystalide, the Disco- 
necte are exclusively monogastric Siphonophora, and so 
monogastric families must come at the head of the Calyco- 
necte. However, the unequal values of the monogastric 
families ought to have attracted attention, inasmuch as in 
those orders they represent the simplest and, in development, 
the oldest genera, whereas the Eudoxide and Erseide, as 
metameric fragments equivalent to the so-called Prodoxiz of 
the polygastric Apolemiadz, represent the final terms of the 
evolution. 
How far the changes relating to the nomenclature of the 
genera and families are justified shall not be further discussed 
here, only a deviation from the old-established practice which 
Haeckel has permitted himself, as in previous writings, in his 
System of the Siphonophora, may be mentioned and rejected 
as inadmissible. ‘This relates to the perfectly new proceeding 
of striking out the name of the author in the case of already 
known species established by previous authors on the ground 
of a change in the generic designation, placing in its stead 
the name of the author of the new genus. ‘This is a licence 
which, so far as I know, no other naturalist allows himself, 
one of Haeckel’s peculiarities which, in conjunction with the 
principle of splitting the genera into new ones upon unim- 
portant differences previously used only for the distinction of 
species, opens to the “mihi” of the systematist a glimpse of 
a new and exceedingly fertile field. 
