some Species referred to it. 45 



(Nov. 1907) allusion was made to Eocidaris. This is a 

 generic name that has been variously interpreted, and some 

 decision concerning it and other names involved had to be 

 come to for my memoir on " The Triassic Echinoderms of 

 Bakony " (in the press). After pages 84-88 containing 

 my conclusions had been passed for press, I learned from 

 Professor R. T. Jackson's letters that he had come to a 

 different conclusion concerning Eocidaris, and I now find his 

 view supported by Professor H. Lyman (Mark in his valuable 

 synopsis of "The Cidaridfe" (Dec. 1907). 



Professor Jackson and I agree that " Eocidaris " is a 

 nuisance, and we should be only too glad to get it decently 

 out of the way. The process of sepulture adopted by 

 Professors Jackson and Clark is to take Cidaris keyserlingi 

 Geinitz as genotype, and in consequence to regard Eocidaris 

 as a synonym of Cidaris. This seems to me to be rather a 

 mock funeral. Granting for the moment that C. keyserlingi 

 might be the true Eocidaris, then, in the first place, one would 

 want to be quite certain as to the meaning of '^ Cidaris,^' a 

 question to which G.Ye,rj recent authority gives a different 

 answer (Bather, March & July, 1908) ; secondly, I should 

 deny that C. keyserlingi w^as a Cidaris, even as that genus 

 is interpreted by Professor Clark, and I should feel obliged 

 to retain the name Eocidaris for a genus better known by at 

 least one other name, namely Miocidaris. 



But I did not feel bound to take Cidaris keyserlingi as 

 genotype of Eocidaris ; on the contrary, simple adherence to 



advocate the use of Echinocrinus. Not so : I have merely pointed out 

 that all accepted rules compel such use. Were there any tribunal before 

 which this question might be laid as an open one, I should plead for the 

 absolute rejection of Echinocrinus. If the Committee on Nomenclature 

 appointed % the International Congress of Zoologists is to be constituted 

 such a tribunal, I hope that Dr. Gregory, Dr. Jackson, and others will 

 join me in submitting this case for its decision. I am ready to accept its 

 decision. Is Dr. Gregory likewise ready ? 



Unless zoologists wish to go on wasting their time in futile squabbling 

 over these dreary questions of nomenclature, they must adhere rigidly 

 to the rules drawn up by the only existing body that can be considered 

 at all representative; or, in cases of doubt and obvious grave incon- 

 venience, they must accept as final the ruling of that sanie body. In 

 these debatable matters there is no other method of applying " common 

 sense"; the alternative is independent judgment, and from that we 

 have suffered too long already. 



P.S. — This footnote was written some months before several British 

 zoologists raised the general question in ' Nature ' (p. 394 ; 27 Aug., 1908) 

 and at the Dublin Meeting of the British Association (see ' Nature,' 

 p. 647 ; 22 Oct., 1908). With their protest I agree, so far as I under- 

 stand it ; but I do not understand what practical results are expected 

 from the resolution that was passed. 



