168 Dr. J, E. Gray on the Arrangement 



the spicules are figured, viz. f. 52, 276, 278, & 306. I have 

 Dr. Bowerbank's authority for considering the latter a syno- 

 nym of M. azorica, he, when examining the specimens in 

 the British Museum, having brought to me as a good example 

 of his Dactylocalyx Prattii the specimen I described and 

 figured, not recognizing it as the Sponge to which he had 

 already given two other names (I believe the Indian ha- 

 bitat is a mistake) ; so that this Sponge has been referred to 

 two genera and regarded as three species by Dr. Bowerbank. 



I suspect that these errors arose from Dr. Bowerbank's habit 

 of working from microscopic preparations, often made by his 

 friends Mr. Tyler and Mr. Lee as well as by himself, from 

 fragments which they obtained from various collections, under 

 different names, without Dr. Bowerbank taking the trouble 

 to compare the specimens from which they were obtained. If 

 mistakes such as these arise in well-marked Sponges like 

 MacAndrewia azorica^ what may not occur in obscure, incon- 

 spicuous, nearly allied British Sponges ? 



Dr. Bowerbank informs me that Placospongia melohesioides, 

 Gray, P. Z. S. 1867, pp. 128 & 549, is the " Oeodia carinata^' 

 Bowerbank, MS., mentioned, but without any description 

 otherwise than that there occur in its interstitial membranes 

 " multiangular cylindi'ical " spicules, in common with another 

 Sponge in the British Museum (see Phil. Trans. 1858, p. 314, 

 and Brit. Spong. i. p. 239, f. 71, & p. 254), as having abundant 

 "arborescent elongo-subsphgero-stellate spicules" (see f. 163). 

 Such names cannot have any claim to be used as having any 

 priority ; indeed I cannot suppose that Dr. Bowerbank would 

 propose that they should ; for he repeatedly objects to other au- 

 thors that they do not define their genera or species. Thus: — 

 "Although the Sponge was designated Dactylocalyx j^umicea^ 

 no generic characters were given ; I propose therefore to cha- 

 racterize it as follows" (B. S. i. p. 203). "Professor Owen 

 has not attempted to characterize his own genus " [Euplectella) 

 (B. S. p. 175). " Grant, I believe, gave no generic description 

 of Gliona'''' (B. S. ii. p. 221). This observation is the more 

 remarkable as Dr. Bowerbank quotes, just before this remark, 

 the excellent generic character given by Mr. Stutchbury, 

 which is far better than that proposed by Dr. Bowerbank 

 himself; for if he had adopted it, he would not have placed 

 in the genus the incongruous D. Prattii = MacAndrewia 

 azorica. 



The system of giving a number of names without any 

 description, which is to be found in Dr. Bowerbank's ' British 

 Sponges ' and Essay, is a very bad one. It is loading the 

 list with a quantity of names which may very probably never 



