CO sir. F. A. Bather on Eocidaris and 



region (about one-third) of the shaft is smooth, with a fine 

 longitudinal striation. The distal region is beset with small 

 thorns having a distal rake; in some of the specimtns these 

 are not clearly seen, in one they are in distinct longitudinal 

 rows (PI. I. fig. 15), and in another, where they are 

 particularly prominent, they form curved transverse rows 

 (PL I. fig. 16). King thought that there were two sorts 

 of radioles : muricate and striate. The specimens are so 

 obscured by grains of matrix that interpretation is difficult, 

 but I fancy the above account represents the facts. There 

 was no doubt a good deal of variation in the radioles of even 

 a single individual, but the general character of the radioles 

 agrees with that of those found in the Zechstein. There is 

 nothing to warrant the separation of the species. 



There is therefore nogiound for separating C. verneuiliana 

 and C. heyserlingi even specifically. Which trivial name 

 should be adopted is a question not hitherto discussed. 

 K. V. Schauroth (]854, p. 182) said " Der King'.sche and 

 der Geinitz'sche Name sind gleichzeitig entstanden, ein 

 Prioritatsrecht besteht al.-o nicht.'" This statement is surely 

 unwarranted. King's * Catalogue of the Organic Remains of 

 the Permien [sic] Kocks cf Northumberland and Durham ' 

 was " published by the author '' at Kewcastle-upon-Tyne, 

 during the afternoon of Saturday, 19th August, 1818*. 

 The description of " Cidaris Verneuiliana n. sj).'' occurs on 

 pp. 6 and 7 of that Catalo<iue. Cidaris keyserlingi was first 

 described on p. \^ of H. B. Geinitz : 'Die Versteinerungen 

 des deutschen Zechsteingebirges ■* (being Heft 1 of Geinitz 

 and Gutbier: 'Die Versteinerungen des Zechsteingebirges 

 und Rothliegenden •'). The titlepage of this Heft is 

 dated "Dresden und Leipzig, .... 1848/' and a review 

 of it appeared in 'Neues Jaiirbuch liir Mineralogie,' Jahrg. 

 1848, pp. 504, 505. These pages are in the fourth 

 of the six parts composing this Jahrgang, and assuming 

 that the parts were published at regular intervals, this 

 would give August 1848 for the date of publication of 

 the review. This part contains letters of whicli the latest is 

 dated 18 June, 1848, and it acknowledges the receipt of 

 publications of which the latest seems to date from April 

 1848. Most of the works reviewed are of 1847, but a few 

 appeared in the early months of 1848. One would naturally 

 infer from this that the work of Geinitz was published not 

 later than April or May of 1848. This agrees with a definite 

 statement by E. Howse (Jan. 1^57, p. 49) that Geinitz's 

 ' Die Versteinerungen u. s. w.' was " published in the early 



* Fide R. Howse, ' Note on the Kigbt of Priority ' [1657]. 



