Misfiellaneous. 'l>il 



references were added to C'idaris mammillata mauri of Klein and to 

 Echinometra digitata 2 of Humph, both of which are included by 

 Leske in C. pajjilluta. Loviii therefore supposes {op. cit. p. 149) 

 that " the species which caused him [Linnaius] to alter the word 

 ' globoso' to ' heraispliairico ' was , . . the C'idaris papillata Leske." 

 This conclusion is confirmed, in Loven's opinion, by the change of 

 habitat from the East Indies (1752) to the Ocean (175S) and the 

 Norwegian Ocean (1761, ' Fauna Suecica '). The reasoning seems 

 inevitable that Echinus cidaris Linn., 1758, was rightly regarded 

 by Leske as synonymous with his Oidaris papillata, and that, to 

 bo more precise, it corresponded with Lcske's var. 3, which now is 

 the restricted and universally accepted C. papillata. So clear is 

 this that it is really hard to see why this species should not be 

 called Cidaris cidaris (lAna.). 



I have worked out this conclusion quite independently ; it agrees 

 with the conclusion reached by Doederlein in 1906. Clark objects 

 to it because Dorocidaris A. Ag. thus becomes a synonym of 

 Cidaris ; and he correctly says that Doederlein does not discuss 

 the divisions of C. papillata Leske. The preceding discussion 

 shows, however, that the same conclusion would have followed had 

 he done so. Clark, it is true, comes to different conclusions in the 

 process, but he does not use the rule of type by tautonomy. 

 Doederlein appears to have acted on the principle of elimination, 

 which, so far as I can see, does lead to his conclusion. Clark 

 applies in addition rule (ry) of the International Code, or Type by 

 subsequent designation. This certainly takes precedence of 

 elimination, and it will be interesting to see how Clark applies it 

 — ignoring for the moment the Tautonomy rule, 



Clark says (p. 174) " Brandt, who was the first writer to 8ubdi\ 'de 

 Cidaris, distinctly states that trihnloides is the type of Cidaris s. str.'' 

 I suppose that Clark is here referring to J. F. Brandt (1^35) f, 

 but, if so, he can hardly be speaking by the book. Brandt did 

 nothing of the kind. Here are his actual words (p. 67) : — 

 " Genus Cidarites Lamk. Subgen. [nov.] Phyllaoanthus Br. . . , 

 (p. 68) Sectio B. Nob.* Spec. 1. Cidarites (Phyllacanihus) dubia 

 Br. [sp. nov.]. . . . Sectioni B. e spccierum cognitarum numero ad- 

 jungenda?, C. imperialis Lamk. . . . C. hystrix. . . . C. geranioidcs 

 . . , C. pistillaris. . , . [Footnote]* Sectio A sou prima subgeneris 

 riiyllacanthus. . . . amplectitur Cidaritidem tribuloidem Lamarckii 

 aliasque affines." It is clear that Brandt mentions no species of 

 Cidaris a. str. Brandt ; that every species mentioned is referred by 

 him to his new sul)genus Phyllacanthus ; that he fixes on no type ; 

 tliat, though the species wliich, owing to our conventions with 

 regard to footnotes, comes highest on the page is C. dabla, yet the 

 species that comes first in reading, in actual writing, and in sense 

 is the only species named under Sectio A, viz. CidarittS {P/ii/Uu- 

 canthas) tnhaloides. I do not hero propose to en(]uire whether 

 any valid reason exists for considering C. duhia { = imperialis 

 Lam.) as genotype of Pliyllacanihus : the question does not couccrn 



t ' Prodromus descript. anim. nb TL Mertensio , . . observ. . .' Fftsc. i. 

 Petropoli. 



