26 Prof. F. J. Bell on the Names or Existence of 



Medd. 1859 [1860], p. 57) described Asteriscus hrasiliensis^ 

 and in a footnote at the end of his memoir identified his with 

 Mobius's species. 



The synonymy of this species should therefore run as 

 follows : — 



Asterina stellifer. 



Asteriscus minutus, M. & Tr. Syst. Ast. (1842), p. 41 (not Gray, 



1840). I 



Asteriscus stellifer, Mobius, Abh. Geb. Naturw. Hamburg, iv. 2 (1859), 



p. 4; Verrill, Trans. Conn. Acad. i. (" 1867 "), p. 343. 

 Asteriscus brasiliensis, Liitken, Vid. Medd. 1859 (1860), p. 57. 

 Asteriscus marqinatus, Val. MSS. ; Hupe, n. n. ; Perrier, Ann. Sci. 



nat. xii. (1869), p. 289. 

 Asterina stellifera, Liitken, Vid. Medd. 1871, p. 301. 

 Asterina marginnta, Perrier, Arch. zool. exp. v. (1876), p. 211 ; Slad. 



Chall. Ptep., Ast. (1889), p. 774. 



Gomodiscus articulatus. 



Mr. Sladen (Chall. Kep. Ast. p. 754) writes "(7. articulatus 

 (Linnd), de Loriol," meaning, I believe, by this formula that 

 Linneeus named this species and de Loriol put it in the genus 

 Goniodiscus ; and on his principles — those of a writer who 

 accepts pre-Linnean quasispecific or distinctly nonspecific 

 names as specific appellations — he is quite right. 



M. de Loriol (Rec. Zool. Suiss. i. p. 638) writes *^ Gonio- 

 discus articulatus (Linn^), Liitken;" this collocation of 

 words must mean something different from Mr, iSladen's, as 

 Dr. Liitken put the species in the genus Goniaster ; and I 

 take it to mean Linnseus before the tenth edition of the 

 ' Systema Naturae ' named this species, and Liitken revived 

 the name. 



I do not see on what grounds we are to associate Linnseus's 

 name with this species : in the tenth and twelfth editions of 

 the ' Systema Naturse ' it is included under A. aranciaca^ and 

 it is to Liitken that the credit is due of distinguishing the 

 form and reviving the name. 



The ' Museum Tessinianum,' in which A. articulata is 

 described and figured, bears date 1753, or is anterior to the 

 tenth edition by five years*; it is said by well-qualified 

 bibliographers (see Cat. Libr. Mus. Pract. Geol.) that the 

 work was published privately, though Count Tessin's preface 

 hardly supports this view. 



If we accept 1758 as the year from which to start we must 



* "1758, the zoological at) urhe condita of binominal chronology," 

 Loven, Echinoid. Linn. (1887), p. 50. 



