Miscellaneous. 465 



A Note on Canon Normans Remarks. By F. Jeffrey Bell. 



I am glad I have succeeded in " drawing " Canon Norman, as I 

 have the highest respect for his views on questions of natural 

 history. 



If I did not make myself clear to his acute intelligence I fear I 

 must be very generally misunderstood. I have, then, to say that 

 my references to Forbes's robbery were intended to be sportive ; I 

 very deeply regret that they should have seemed to be offensive. I 

 need not say that there was no intention to offend the living or 

 reflect on the dead. 



Although I have the honour of numbering Dr. Sutherland among 

 my correspondents, his reputation as a collector is not as extensive 

 as I hoped it was ; at the same time I could hardly have implied 

 more distinctly than I did that his collection of Echinodernis was 

 made on the east coast of Boss-shire — as a matter of fact in Cro- 

 marty Firth. 



It is a little cruel that I should be charged with an implication 

 that I did not mean, and that one that seems clear enough should 

 have been missed. But T know Canon Norman is a busy man, and 

 I own that one should write — if one can — so that he who runs may 

 read. 



I am glad Dr. Norman has taken the fence of Goniaster; there 

 was an ugly take-off, owing to the way in which Messrs. Perrier and 

 Sladen had broken up the ground, and I feared a deepish ditch on 

 the other side ; and I congratulate myself that by doing other things 

 first Dr. Norman has come up and shown me the way over a very 

 nasty place. 



Anseropoda having asserted its priority, I for one am quite 

 willing to let it lie beneath the mud with which Canon Norman 

 has bespattered it. Succeeding synonymists are requested to note 

 its place and mode of burial. 



Just to complete what may be said about the matter, I may, how- 

 ever, add that the students of Echinoderms have not been quite as 

 sharp as the ornithologists, who found out in 1879 (see Mr. H. T. 

 Wharton's paper in the ' Ibis' for that year, p. 456) that Merrem 

 meant his genus to be called Ortalis, and not Ortalida. Ansero- 

 poda is clearly in the accusative singular ; Anseropus modified to 

 Anseripes would have made a passable name, but we need not 

 displace Pahnipes to make way for it. 



As to the date of Lophaster furcifer, I will only remark that I am 

 astonished at Dr. Norman citing the " author's own statement of 

 date ; " if there is one man who is not to be trusted as to the date 

 of a name my experience tells me it is the author of it. 



If Dr. Norman will, when he has a moment to spare — it won't 

 take more- — turn up M. Perrier's descriptions of the species of 

 Marginaster, he will see that the plea he makes is not an answer to 

 the charge. I need not trouble the readers of the ' Annals ' with 

 the details. 



