Miscellaneous. 533 



As regards Gray's paper (1825), I have not overlooked it, bur. I 

 did not (and I do not) see that it has any bearing on the point. 

 Although he established Diadema, he certainly did not revise 

 C'idaris, and he gives no type. He simply mentions C. irnjierialis, 

 Lamk., as an example of C'idaris, in contrast to Diadema, and the 

 International Code particularly says : " The meaning of the ex- 

 Iiression 'select a typo' is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a 

 species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute 

 a selection of a type." It seems to me absurd to suppose that 

 Brandt (1835) expected or intended that both his " Section A " and 

 " Section B " of C'idaris were to be called Phiillacanthus, as I under- 

 stand Dr. Bather maintains. While Brandt's footnote is ambiguous, 

 it seems to me ck-ar that he selected (?«6m ( = ?»iper/rt/?>) as the 

 type of Phiillacanthus, and tribuloidcs as the type of Section A, 

 which, as he gives it no name, he obviously expected would be 

 called Cidaris. However, there is room for difference of opinion 

 as to whether he really selected a type, so that it ir.ay be necessary 

 to seek the type of Cidaris among later writers. In that case we 

 reach the following simple conclusion : Dr. Bather agrees that 

 Leske's "species *' (or, more properly, "group") ixipillata includes 

 tliree species, and none of his other species are Cidarida^ at all. 

 These three species are imperialis, j^dpillata ■. str., and tribuloides. 

 Obviously one of these must be the type of C'idaris, and granting 

 that neither Gray nor Brandt designated a type, we tind that Desor 

 in 1S54 removed imperialis to Leiocidaris (^■=PhylJacanthus), and 

 A. Agassiz in 1869 Tumo-wed pajyillata s. str. to Dorocidaris. Conse- 

 quently tribidoides alone remains to be the type of Cidaris. 



My whole contention is simply for stability of nomenclature. 

 The names accepted by Alexander Agassiz after most exhaustive 

 study and published in his classic ' Revision of the Echini ' have 

 been universally accepted until within the past live years, except 

 in so far as Loven's critical study of the Linnean Echini (18S7) 

 necessitated a few changes. But Loven's woik does not atl'cct any 

 of the Cidaridsc, and 1 maintain that no reasonable and unquestion- 

 able application of our now generally accepted Code of Nomenclature 

 requires the overturning and confusion of the commonly used names 

 iu that family, such as results from the attempt to make some other 

 species than tribidoides the type of Cidaris. 



Hubert Lyman Ci.arx. 



Museum of Comparative Zoology, 



Cambrid<:e, Mass., 



April 3, I'JOa 



The Cahoio : Discovery in Bermuda of Fossil Bones and Feathers 

 supposed to belowf to the E.rtinct Bird called " Cahow'" bif IIk 

 tarbj Settlers. By A. E. Vkkuill. 



In a letter just received from Mr. Louis ^[owbray, mIio is now in 

 charge of the new Marine Biological Station and Aquarium at 

 Bermuda, he tells of his recent very important and interesting 



Ann. i(; Maj. X. Hist. Ser. S. Vol. i. 3;) 



