Miscellaneous. 385 



with a head of Latin, a tail of Greek, and the whole a plural form ! 

 Agassiz knew well what he was about when he rejected it and 

 applied Palmipes to the genus *. Professor Jeffrey Bell calls atten- 

 tion to the loose way in which Palmipes is employed by Linck; and 

 of course authors can use their judgment in writing either Palmipes, 

 Linck, Palmipes (Linck), Agass., or Palmipes, Agass. ; for although 

 Agassiz gave Linck the credit of the genus, the last of these is quite 

 correct according to the direction in Brit. Assoc. Bules : — " Names 

 used by previous [»". e. prae-Linnaean] authors may often be applied 

 with propriety to modern genera, yet in such cases they acquire a 

 new meaning, and should be quoted on the authority of the first 

 person who used them in this secondary sense," 



5. Date 0/ Coelasterias. 



Sladen's reference is quite correct and intelligible to me — " Verrill, 

 Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts and Sci. 1871 (1807)." I take it that 

 Dr. Gray's copy in Brit. Mus. bearing date 1869 is only a part of 

 the reissue. My own copy of " Notes on the Radiata in the Museum of 

 Yale College &c."' is paged 247 to 611, and has ten plates ; the several 

 sheets are all dated, the last being " March 1871," and the first page 

 (247) contains the description of Coelasterias, above which is " Bead 

 Jan. 16th, 1867," and at the bottom of the page " Trans. Connec- 

 ticut Acad. vol. i. February 1867." I may add that the work as 

 far as p. 502 bears date " March 1869," and this perhaps represents 

 the portion in B. M. Library. 



6. Lophaster furcifer. 



Sladen's date, Chcetaster borealis, 1844, seems quite correct; at 

 least, he has the author's own statement of date, "May 1844," to 

 rely upon ; and Diiben withdrew the specific MS. name " borealis " 

 and substituted for it Solaster furcifer himself (vide Dub. & Kor. 

 p. 245, note). 



7. Marginaster. 



Some naturalists of very high standing, e. g. G. 0. Sars, when 

 they meet with a species manifestly generically distinct from allies 

 prefer to allow a full general description to stand for both genus 

 and species for a time in hope that other allied forms may be found 

 which will more accurately show what should be regarded as generic 

 and what as specific characters. I do not defend, I only state the 

 custom ; but in such cases it is surely correct to refer to the descrip- 

 tion, which was intended to be both generic and specific. 



8. On the Presence of Bare Forms on the East Coast. 



I presume that Prof. Bell is satisfied Dr. Sutherland's specimen 



• Vide Anseropoda in the Nomencl. Zool. of Agassiz both among Echi- 

 Bodermata and in General Index. 



