168 Dr. J. E. Gray on the Arrangement 
the spicules are figured, viz. f. 52, 276, 278, & 306. Ihave 
Dr. Bowerbank’s authority for considering the latter a syno- 
nym of M. azorica, he, when examining the specimens in 
the British Museum, having brought to me as a good example 
of his Dactylocalyx Prattvi the specimen I described and 
figured, not recognizing it as the Sponge to which he had 
already given two other names (I believe the Indian ha- 
bitat is a mistake) ; so that this Sponge has been referred to 
two genera and regarded as three species by Dr. Bowerbank. 
I suspect that these errors arose from Dr. Bowerbank’s habit 
of working from microscopic preparations, often made by his 
friends Mr. Tyler and Mr. Lee as well as by himself, from 
fragments which they obtained from various collections, under 
different names, without Dr. Bowerbank taking the trouble 
to compare the specimens from which they were obtained. If 
mistakes such as these arise in well-marked Sponges like 
MacAndrewia azorica, what may not occur in obscure, incon- 
spicuous, nearly allied British Sponges ? 
- Dr. Bowerbank informs me that Placospongia melobesioides, 
Gray, P. Z. 8. 1867, pp. 128 & 549, is the “ Geodia carinata,” 
Bowerbank, MS., mentioned, but without any description 
otherwise than that there occur in its interstitial membranes 
“ multiangular cylindrical”’ spicules, in common with another 
Sponge in the British Museum (see Phil. Trans. 1858, p. 314, 
and Brit. Spong. i. p. 239, f. 71, & p. 254), as having abundant 
“‘ arborescent elongo-subspheero-stellate spicules ”’ (see f. 163). 
Such names cannot have any claim to be used as having any 
priority ; indeed I cannot suppose that Dr. Bowerbank would 
propose that they should ; for he repeatedly objects to other au- 
thors that they do not define their genera or species. Thus:— 
“ Although the Sponge was designated Dactylocalyx pumicea, 
no generic characters were given; I propose therefore to cha- 
racterize it as follows” (B.S. i. p. 203). ‘ Professor Owen 
has not attempted to characterize his own genus ”’ (Huplectella) 
(B.S. p.175). “Grant, I believe, gave no generic description 
of Cliona”’ (B.S. ii. p. 221). This observation is the more 
remarkable as Dr. Bowerbank quotes, just before this remark; 
the excellent generic character given by Mr. Stutchbury, 
which is far better than that proposed by Dr. Bowerbank 
himself; for if he had adopted it, he would not have placed 
in the genus the incongruous D. Prattii = MacAndrewia 
azorica. 
The system of giving a number of names without any 
description, which is to be found in Dr. Bowerbank’s ‘ Britis 
Sponges’ and Essay, is a very bad one. It is loading the 
list with a quantity of names which may very probably never 
