Miscella n eo us. 1 3 5 



distinct species. "Which of them is to be regarded as the true 

 C. papillata ? My application of the rules led me to decide on 

 no. III. Dr. Clark objects to my application, but arrives, like 

 every one else, at the same result. Now comes the divergence. I 

 maintain that if species no. III. is rightly called Cidaris papillata, 

 it must be the genotype. Dr. Clark rejects this obvious course and 

 fixes on no. II., which was first made a separate species by Lamarck 

 under the name Cidarites tribidoides. But a species unrecognized 

 as such by Leske cannot (by lnternat. Code, Art. 30, II. e, a) be 

 the genotype of Leske's own geuus, unless, indeed, it prove after 

 all to be a synonym of 0. papillata, in which ease it must take that 

 name. 



Why does Dr. Clark refuse to take C. papillata s. str. as the 

 genotype ? I accept his disclaimer of the reason I gave : " because 

 Dorocidaris A. Ag. thus becomes a synonym of Cidaris" and quote 

 his own words: "A. Agassiz in 1869 removed papillata s. str. to 

 Dorocidaris." It would be more correct to say that in 1863 (Bull. 

 Mus. Comp. Zool. i. p. 17) A. Agassiz restricted "Cidaris Klein " to 

 C. ihouarsii, C. tribidoides, C. annidata, C. baculosa, and allied 

 species, and that he removed to Orthocidaris Ag. C. hystrix, C. affinis, 

 and " C. papillata Flem.," but that, finding the name Orthocidaris 

 preoccupied by Cotteau, in 1869 he altered it to Dorocidaris. The 

 type of Dorocidaris was not fixed ; but, sinee in the ' Revision of 

 the Echini ' Mr. Agassiz (p. 105) recognized that all the species he 

 had referred to it were synonyms of C. papillata Leske, it follows 

 that the genotype of Dorocidaris is Cidaris papillata Leske. 

 Whether the Cidaris of A. Agassiz, 1863 and 1872, can correctly 

 be regarded as equal to a restricted Cidaris Klein need not be 

 discussed ; it is, however, interesting to note that it was not claimed 

 as in any way representing Cidaris Leske — that position was 

 reserved for Dorocidaris. It follows, then, that from the beginning 

 Dorocidaris was a synonym of Cidaris Leske, and therefore those 

 who accept Cidaris Leske must reject Dorocidaris. In a word, yoia 

 cannot make Cidaris papillata s. lato the type of Cidaris, and 

 Cidaris papillata s. str. the type of Dorocidaris. 



Mr. P. Thiery has kindly pointed out to me that, in resuscitating 

 the name Gyynnocidaris A. Ag., 1863, I overlooked the prior use of 

 the name by L. Agassiz (1838, ' Monogr. des Salenies,' p. 3). This 

 name has been re-established by Mr. Lambert (see Zool. Record for 

 1900). Apparently, then, a name is still required for "Cidaris Klein 

 restr. A. Ag." 



Two further criticisms made by Dr. Clark need consideration. 



I said that J. E. Gray (1825) fixed the genotype as C. imperialis 

 Lam. Dr. Clark says "He simply mentions " that species " as an 

 example of Cidaris, in contrast to Diadema." This is an extra- 

 ordinary representation of Gray's action. The paper is a professedly 

 systematic paper by a revising systematist, being " An attempt to 

 divide the Echinida, or Sea Eggs, into natural Families." It deals 

 with a large number of genera, many of them new, and even though 



