344 Rev. Canon Norman on Ebalia nux. 



I really had been under the impression, and I fancy that 

 your readers will be of the same opinion, that I had dealt 

 very tenderly with Mr. Pocock. I merely gave a plain 

 statement of facts, corrective of Mr, Pocock's omissions, 

 without further comment. Mr. Pocock complains that I had 

 " taken occasion to charge him by implication with lack of 

 courtesy for not giving what I consider due acknowledgment 

 to the name I applied to the above Crustacean." It happens 

 that I took particular pains not to allege that lack of courtesy 

 which his conscience now plainly tells him there was. Had 

 he used a little care he could not have fallen into it. Natu- 

 ralists living in the country, with nothing but their own or 

 .neighbouring small libraries to depend upon, may well in these 

 days be excused if they are deficient in a knowledge of the 

 literature of a subject on which they write ; but the case is 

 different with an Assistant at the British Museum, who has a 

 magnificent library at his elbow. The literature of deep-sea 

 dredging is not extensive, and surely ought to have been 

 carefully consulted before writing. Either Mr. Pocock was 

 not aware or was aware that Prof. Milne-Edwards had admi- 

 rably figured Ebalia nux in illustrations which ought to have 

 been the first work consulted on Crustacea when examining 

 deep-sea forms of the Eastern North Atlantic. If he did not 

 consult that work, he ought to have done so. If he did 

 consult it, as he seems to imply in his last remarks that he 

 had done, he had no excuse for writing ^^Ehalia nuXj n. sp.," 

 instead of either '^Ebalia nux, Norman, MS.," or "Ebalia nux, 

 A. Milne-Edwards." Again, Mr. Pocock states that he was 

 indebted to Prof. Carus's ' Prodromus ' for the knowledge 

 that " Ebalia nux, Norman," was " species nondum de- 

 scripta ; " yet he possessed the same means of making the 

 discovery which Prof. Carus had. 



But what specimens did Mr. Pocock describe as Ebalia nux, 

 n. sp. {t\ e. Pocock)? The 'Flying Fox' specimen was 

 apparently too imperfect for description, which was therefore 

 drawn up from a series I had sent to tlie British Museum 

 when my Iricnd Mr. Miers wished to examine tliis sj)ecies in 

 connexion with certain 'Challenger' forms. Whether this 

 was a courteous act let others judge. 



The same carelessness in consultation of papers is evi- 

 denced in Mr. Pocock's notes on Anamathia Carpenteri and 

 hisyognatlius Thortisoni, of which he writes : — " I am not 

 aware that they have ere this gained the right to be included 

 in a list of the fauna of the British area." Yet these species 



