34 PROF. AGASSIZ ON THJS SYNONYMY OF ECHINI. [Jan. 20, 



evidently the forerunners of others, it would be premature to enter 

 here into any discussion of the criticisms of Mr. Bell on the characters 

 of this or that species ; yet the tone adopted by Mr. Bell from the 

 outset towards me calls for some couuterstatement on my part, not 

 on matters involving difference of opinion, but on questions which 

 underlie the method I have adopted in the ' Revision of the Echini.' 



In the first of the two articles (pp. 249 and 655) which alone 

 concern us at present, it seems unnecessary to notice such quibbling 

 as occurs on p. 252 in reference to the synonymy of Echinus and 

 Brissus. When we come, however, to the omission of a synonym, 

 this is of course, as Mr. Bell says, a more serious matter. I am ac- 

 cused (p. 252) of omitting in the synonymy of Brissus unicolor the 

 name E. unicolor, Gmel., which I quote in the Chronological List, 

 while I introduce in the synonymy E. ovatus, Gmel. 



This charge I will answer by quotations from the ' Revision ' (pp. 

 28 and S7) :— 



" In giving the synonymy of species which have become historical, 



it becomes a necessity to cull the long list of quotations 



misnamed synonyms, and to separate what is merely bibliographical 

 from what constitutes the history of the name and the history of the 

 species.'' 



" Not to introduce too many doubtful synonyms, a general con- 

 cordance of all the names given to Echini, including MS. names 

 mentioned, is added, where doubtful synonyms will be found re- 

 corded by referring them to some species of this Revision." 



If Mr. Bell will read the first page (p. 87) of the synonymy of the 

 •Revision,' and then look in the Synonymic Index (p. 187) under 

 Echinus unicolor, he will find the very reference to the synonymy of 

 J3?-issus unicolor on p. 97, which he states I have omitted. 



He next says, p. 252, " the date of the specific term unicolor being 

 then 1788, what is the date oi curinatusi " But the date oi unicolor 

 is not 1788; it is 1734. Mr. Bell will find in the Chronological 

 List, on p. 36, under " 1734 Klein (continued)," Brissus unicolor ! 

 This means, as Mr. Bell can ascertain from the Revision (p. 87), that 

 I had seen the original specimen of Klein's Brissus unicolor ! [see 

 Introd. Revision Echini, p. ix]. On one side therefore we have the 

 statement of Mr. Bell that the date oi unicolor is 1788, and on the 

 other Klein's original of B. unicolor dating back to 1734, which 

 leaves no choice of date. 



I have throughout the Revision recognized the same principle with 

 regard to original or authentic specimens, and quote again from it 

 ['Revision,' p. 13] : — "As far as the question of priority of the specific 

 name goes, the only guide I shall take is an original or authentic 

 specimen the oldest name shall be preserved to the ex- 

 clusion of all others, if the change is based upon authentic specimens, 

 and not simply upon a figure, a guess, which may or may not be 

 true." Carrying out the above views, I ascribed carinatus, of which 

 I had seen an authentic specimen, to Lamarck, and placed Echinus 

 carinatus, Gmel., in the Synonymic Index (p. 183), referring it to 

 Brissus carinitttis. Gray (p. 96). 



