MiscelJaneozis. 135 



distinct species. Which of them is to be reo:arded as the true 

 C. pdpUlata ? My application of the rules led me to decide on 

 no. III. Dr. Clark objects to my application, but arrives, like 

 every one else, at the same result. Now comes the divergence. I 

 maintain that if species no. III. is rightly called Cidaris ixipiUata, 

 it must be the genotype. Dr. Clark rejects this obvious course and 

 fixes on no. II., which was fii'st made a separate species by Lamarck 

 under the name Cidarites trilndoides. But a species unrecognized 

 as such by Leske cannot (by Internat. Code, Art. 30, II. e, a) be 

 the genotype of Leske's own genus, unless, indeed, it prove alter 

 all to be a synonym of 0. pajnllata, in which case it must take that 

 name. 



Why does Dr. Clark refuse to take C. papillata s. str. as the 

 genotype? I accept his disclaimer of the reason I gave : " because 

 Dorocidaris A. Ag. thus becomes a synonym of Cidaris" and quote 

 his own words: "A. Agassiz in 18G9 removed papillata s. str. to 

 Dorocidaris." It would be more correct to say that in ISGi (Bull, 

 Mus. Comp. Zool. i. p. 17) A. Agassiz restricted '■'Cidaris Klein" to 

 C. tJiouarsii, C. trdndoides, G. anmdata, C. baadosa, and allied 

 species, and that ho removed to Orthocidaris Ag. C. hystrix, C. aj/inis, 

 and " C. painUata Flem.," but that, finding the name Orthocidaris 

 preoccupied by Cotteau, in 1869 he altered it to Dorocidaris. The 

 type of Dorocidaris was not fixed ; but, since in the ' lievision o-f 

 the Echini ' Mr. Agassiz (p. 105) recognized that all the species he 

 had referred to it were sj'nonyms of C. pa-pillata Leske, it follows 

 that the genotype of Dorocidaris is Cidaris papillata Leske. 

 Whether the Cidaris oi A. . Agassiz, 1863 and 187i?, can correctly 

 be regarded as equal to a restricted Cidaris Klein need not be 

 discussed ; it is, however, interesting to note that it was not claimed 

 as in any way representing Cidaris Leske — that position was 

 reserved for Dorocidaris. It follows, then, that from the beginning 

 Dorocidaris was a synonym of Cidaris Leske, and therefore those 

 who accept Cidaris Leske must reject Dorocidaris. In a word, you 

 cannot make Cidaris papillata s, late the type of Cidaris, and 

 Cidaris papillata s. str. the type of Dorocidaris. 



Mr. P. Thiery has kindly pointed out to me that, in resuscitating 

 the name Gymnocidaris A. Ag., 1863, I overlooked the prior use of 

 the name by L. Agassiz (1838, ' Monogr. des Salenies,' p. 3). This 

 name has been re-established by Mr. Lambert (see Zool. Record for 

 1900). Apparently, then, a name is still required for '•'•Cidaris Klein 

 restr. A. Ag." 



Two further criticisms made by Dr. Clark need consideration. 

 I said that J. E. Gray (1825) fixed tlie genotype as G. imperialis 

 Lam. Dr. Clark says " He simply mentions " that species " as an 

 example of Cidaris, in contrast to Diadema.'^ This is an extra- 

 ordinary representation of Gray's action. The paper is a profeasedly 

 systematic paper by a revising systematist, being "An attempt to 

 divide the Echinida, or Sea Eggs, into natural Families." It deals 

 with a large number of genera, many of them new, and even though 



