Bthliograjphical Notice. 487 



part of Prof. Alex. Agassiz are to be found in the absence of any 

 reference to the work of Gmelin, or to the important notice of Brandt 

 (Midd. Sib. Reise, ii. p. 34), in which there occur the very striking 

 words — " Sondern auch mit den von Mertens mitgebrachten Indi- 

 viduen eines Seeigels, worauf der Echinus Morocentrotus des Prodro- 

 mus basirt ist, der also kiinftig als Synonym des neglecttis zu citiren 

 sein wiirde ;" and which it is of interest to pit against the very 

 opposite conclusion of Stimpson (a reference to whose ' Invertebrates 

 of Grand Manan ' is likewise omitted by Prof. Agassiz from his 

 " sjTionymy ") — " Among these are found several varieties, perhaps 

 species, which an extended observation only can elucidate." Nor 

 do Messrs. Duncan and Sladen follow the American writer in omit- 

 ting a notice of Forbes's reference to the species in the Appendix to 



* Sutherland's Journey,' where that gifted naturalist remarks on the 

 fact that it is found in Pleistocene beds " associated with a mollus- 

 cous fauna in many respects comparable with that of the Arctic 

 seas." 



We could carry this criticism further, but we gladly refrain : the 

 lesson that it teaches us is not, however, a very satisfactory one ; and 

 if these things be done in the green tree, what shall be done in the 

 dry*? 



If a naturalist of first-class eminence afford material for such 

 criticism, we may justly refuse to take on trust the work of those 

 whose investigations have not attained, whether rightly or wrongly, 

 the same vogue ; but we feel bound to point out that, for the species 

 under discussion, the only points open to criticism in Messrs. Duncan 

 and Sladen 's synonymy are those which we have thrown into the 

 subjoined footnote. On the other hand, we cannot but regret that 

 the present authors have thought it right to follow MiiUer and 

 Troschel in the use of the term Asteracanthion, against the use of 

 which Mr. Norman has already spoken in our pages, and that they have 

 followed M. Perrier in returning to the quasi-specific names of Linck, 

 whose work we are by no moans behind the authors in regarding 

 with the deepest respect. By speaking of Astropecten corniculatus 

 Linck would indeed seem to be using the binominal method ; but it 

 is to be noted that his very next form is spoken of as A. ecMnatus 

 major ; and M. Perrier, by reviving the former of these terms, finds 

 himself in opposition to every careful nomenclator since the time 

 of Dliben and Keren, who, in 1844, taught us to know this 

 common form by Retzius's specific appellation of crispatus — a term 

 we would, with deference, ask to be allowed to retain. 



We greatly regret that we have been led to devote so much of 

 our space to the mere question of nomenclature, and most sincerely 

 wish it might have been otherwise. We have heard of men silenced 

 by a " magni nominis umbra ;" zoologists wiU have to be careful 



* May we point out to Messrs. Duncan and Sladen that 1840, not 

 1841, is the date of Gould's * Invertebrates of Massachusetts ' (Ist ed.), 

 that the ' Forhandlinger ' in which Sars describes T. paUidus bears 

 the date of 1872, and tliat the full account of Prof. Loven's invaluable 



* Etudes ' might well be referred to ? 



