610 ox CRUSTACEA BROUGHT BY DR WILLEY FROM THE SOUTH SEAS. 



Crustacea of Norway, now on the eve of completion and entirely devoted to this group 

 under its long-received designation. It must be admitted that a change in the title 

 has become very inconvenient and is likely to be very unwelcome. Nevertheless, the 

 reasons for making it may be allowed to outweigh such objections. 



When the principal divisions of the Crustacea are considered, whether they are 

 regarded as sub-classes or orders or sub-orders, it appears that a name founded upon 

 a particular genus is limited to the Cumacea, except in the case of the recently 

 separated and not universally accepted order or sub-order of the Tanaidacea. But the 

 Cumacea, if allowed to derive their ordinal name from a genus, should at least derive it 

 fi-om the earliest generic name within the group, which is Diastylis, established by Say 

 in 1818, not Cuina, due to Milne-Edwards in 1828. Illustrious as Hemi Milne-Edwards 

 personally was, there is no great reason for honouring him through the name of this 

 genus, which he persisted in regarding as of larval character. Moreover, the word 

 Guma itself is under a cloud. Scudder's Nomenclator Zoologicus, an easily accessible 

 work, gives from Agassiz, " Cuma Humph. Moll. 179-5. A." Humphrey's work is rare, 

 but Chenu, Manuel de Conchyliologie, vol. 1, p. 171, 1859, is still using his genus 

 for two species of Gasteropods, C. angidifera and C. kiosqmformis, of Duclos, heading 

 the description with the words, " SI" Genre. Cuma. Humphrey, 1797. Etabli aux depens 

 des pourpres." Lately with the friendlv assistance of Mr B. B. Woodward at the 

 British (Natural History) Museum I have been able to compare Scudder and Chenu 

 with the original authority for the name in question. The book in which it occurs, 

 bearing the title 'Museum Calonnianum,' was published anonymously in 1797, but is 

 known independent!}' of its title-page to have been by G. Humphrey. It contains at 

 p. 35, between the genera Fums and Mitra, 'Genus LX. Cuma — L'Onde — Wave,' 

 followed by 13 species, numbered from 645 to 657. The first of these is named 

 ' Icterica,' but this being, like most of the others, unaccompanied by any description, 

 figure, or reference, must be regarded as a nomen nudum. On the other hand 

 ' 646. Aulica ' is referred to ' Buccinum Aulicum Soland.,' and ' 647. Morio ' is referred 

 to 'Voluta Morio Linn. Buccinum Morio Soland.,' while to '650. Prismatica' there is 

 appended a short description by the author himself There is no angidifera or 

 kiosquiformis among the original species, so that Chenu's use of the genus for none 

 but those two is illegitimate. None the less it is evident that a molluscan genus 

 Cuma was established, in however poverty-stricken a manner, in 1797, and that the 

 crustacean genus which received this preoccupied name in 182s must fall back upon 

 some other designation. The result is that the displacement of Cuma, Milne-Edwards, 

 will lead to the reinstatement of Bodotria, Goodsir, and make the name Cumacea wholly 

 inappropriate and unmeaning. 



The new title here offered is derived from the Greek a-v/j.Trov<;, av/j,'7roBo<;, meaning 

 ' with the feet closed together.' This is sufficiently characteristic of the general appear- 

 ance, and the name has the advantage of agreeing in termination with the names of 

 the neighbouring groups, the Amphipoda and the Isopoda, which owe their titles m 

 like manner to what may be called an impressionist estimate of the limbs. 



