Miscellaneous. 2S5 



Ci'Iaris to Klein, 1734, and to take as genotype Echinus ciduris 

 Linn., a species that dates at earliest from 1752. To the bearing 

 of this specific name on the post-Linnean Ci'Iaris we shall recur, 

 merely pointing out that, if it equals C. baculosa, then Cidaris 

 replaces J'hi/llacanfhus Brandt, according to the usual diagnoses 

 and content of that genus, though not according to the views of 

 Mortensen. 



Professors Doedcrloin and Clark, it will be observed, agree in 

 ascribing Cidaris to Leske *, and here they appear to be in com- 

 plete accord with the facts and with every code of nomenclature. 

 They differ, however, as to the genotype, for which, to all appear- 

 ance, Clark adopts a species not mentioned by Leske. Such a 

 course is not permissible unless the later name can be shown to 

 have supplanted one of Leske's names. Prof, Clark does, in fact, 

 attempt to justify his choice by stating that his genotype, Cidarites 

 trihidoides Lara., was included in Cidaris papillata Leske, and that 

 it was selected as type by Brandt. The former statement is correct 

 in so far as Lamarck himself referred to Leske's figure of Cidaris 

 pnjnllata, var. minor Leske, a reference which was accepted by 

 A. Agassiz (1872, ' llevision,' p. 99). It therefore appears that 

 Clark, no less than Docderlein, regards Cidaris papillata Leske as 

 containing the genotype ; indeed, lie says that all the rest of 

 Leske's twenty-eight species have been removed to other families. 



Taking, then, Leske as author of Cidaris, let us apply the rules of 

 nomenclature. Those relating to the determination of a genotype 

 are now summarized in Article 30 of the International Code f. 

 Applying them in order of precedence, as we are definitely instructed 

 to do, we are checked first by {d): " If a genus, without originally 

 designated or indicated type, contains among its original species one 

 possessing the generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either 

 as valid name or synonym, that species or subspecies becomes ipso 

 facto type of the genus." Now the opening sentences of Leske's 

 " Additaraentum ad Kleinii § 21. Species 11. Cidaris mauri 

 &c." (1778, p. 125) run thus: " Spec. XIX. Cidaris papillata. 

 Tab. VII. Non possum non, quin hie iterum cum Klkinio et 

 LiNNEO sentiam, qui ad unam speeiem referunt omnes varietates, 

 quia alii, praesertim CI. Van Phelsim, species esse existimant. 

 Nominatur haec species a Linneo: Echinus cidaris, hemispha>rico 

 depressus ; ambulacris quinis repandis linearibus ; areis alternatim 

 bifariis. S. N. p. 1103. sp. 8. Mus. L. vi. p. 710. Faun. Sv^c. 

 p. 513, n. 2118." The diagnosis quoted is that of Syst. Nat. ed. x. 

 (1758). It would not have been possible for Leske to say more 

 plainly or precisely that he regarded his G. pnpiUaia and Echinus 

 cidaris Linn, as synonymous. It seems to follow that, whichever 

 name bo accepted, this species must be the genotype by rule ((/). 



♦ 1778. ' Additamenta ad Klein ' : Lip^ire. pp. xvii, 74, et sqq. 



t See 'Sciencf',' n. s. xxvi. p. 621 ; Oct. 1907. Also J. A..\llen, 1007, 

 " A List of the Genera and Subgenera of North-American I5iiiis,'' Bull. 

 Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. xxiv. pp. 1-50. 



