650 ox CRUSTACEA BROUGHT BY DR WILLEY FROItf THE SOUTH SEAS. 



1843. Armadillo, Kraiiss, Die Siiclafrikanischen Crustaceen, p. 63. 



1847. Armadillo, White, Crust. Brit. Mus., p. 100. 



18.53. Armadillo, Dana, U. S. Expl. Exp., vol. 13, p. 71.5. 



1853. Spherillo, Dana, ibid., pp. 71.5, 719. 



1853. Diploexochus, Dana, ibid., p. 715. 



1859. Pyrrioniscus, Kinahan, Proc. Dublin Univ., vol. 1, p. 199. 



18(58. Spherillo, Heller, Reise der Novara, Crust., p. 134. 



1876. Armadillo, Miers, Catal. Crust. New Zealand, p. 94. 



1876. Cubaris, Miers, ibid., p. 95. 



1876. Spherillo, Miers, ibid., p. 96. 



1877. Cubaris, Miers, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 664. 

 1877. Orthonus, Miers, ibid. 



1879. Armadillo, Budde-Lund, Prospectus Isopodam terrestrium. 



1885. Armadillo, Biidde-Luud, Isopoda terrestria, pp. 15, 50, 282. 



1887. Armadillo. Dollfus, Bull. Soc. detudes sci. de Paris (Crust, isop. terrestres). 



1893. Cubaris, Stebbiug, History of Crustacea, Internat. Sci. Ser., vol. 74, p. 432. 



1898. Armadillo, Dollfus, Zool. Ergebnisse Niederlandisch Ost-Indien, vol. 4, p. 358. 



1898. Cubaris, Sars, Crustacea of Norway, vol. 2, p. 188. 



1900. Cubaris, Harriet Richardson, The American Naturalist, vol. 34, p. 305. 



This genus now contains so large a number of species that its subdivision would 

 be a matter of convenience. In the sj-nonymy there are several names inviting 

 employment for such a purpose. Unfortunately they were introduced before the 

 necessities of the case were well understood, so that in general they are rather a 

 stumbliug-bloek than an assistance. The use of the name Cubaris itself requires 

 vindication, especiallj' as it has been discarded both bj- Gustav Budde-Lund and by 

 Adrien Dollfus, two writers to whom science is so deeply indebted for extended and 

 more intimate acquaintance with the land Isopoda of the world. The name Armadillo 

 to which those authors give the preference was introduced by Latreille in 1804, 

 Hist. Nat. des Crustaces, vol. 7, p. 47, with the three species, vulgaris, variegatus, 

 maculatus. But by Budde-Lund the first two of these are included in the genus 

 Armadillidium, and the third is considered not to be an isopod at all. All three 

 are referred to Armadillidium by Dollfus. For these authorities, therefore. Armadillo 

 ought to disappear. They, like Brandt, base it upon a .species called Armadille des 

 boutiques by Dumeril in 1806 {officinalis, Desmarest, Consid. gen. Crust., p. 323, 

 officinarum, Brandt, loc. cit., p. 191), which, as Miers remarks, had not been described 

 when Latreille founded the geniis, so that, as Dumeril's Armadillo is generically 

 distinct from Latreille's, it falls to the ground as a preoccupied name. Latreille's 

 Armadillo, it is true, has precedence of Brandt's Armadillidium. But there is fair 

 reason for maintaining that Latreille's Armadillo is also preoccupied. The name was 

 used for a quadruped by Brissou in 1756, and the second enlarged edition of Brisson's 

 Regnum Animale in 1762 retains the name (see p. 23) in preference to the Dasypus 

 of Linnaeus. No doubt Brisson was not uniformly consistent in the use of the 

 recently-introduced binomial nomenclature, but he does not transgress it in any 

 of his seven species of Armadillo, except that he leaves the first without any 



