1880.] PROF. AGASSIZ ON THE SYNONYMY OF ECHINI. 37 



that considerable confusion has arisen in the generic synonymy from 

 their omission at the time of the publication of the Catalogue 

 raisonne of Agassiz and Desor. 



Mr. Bell's reference to the 'NomenclatorZoologicus,'March(1842), 

 in support of his position that Professor Agassiz believed he first 

 used the name Tripneustes in the Preface of the 'Anatomic du genre 

 Echinus,'' only proves that it was not correctly quoted in the 'Nomen- 

 clator.' Of the genera mentioned for the first time in the Introduc- 

 tion to the Monographic des Scutelles we find Temnopleurus, Pleur- 

 echinus, Amblypneustes, Tetrapijgus, and Agarites referred correctly 

 in the 'Nomenclator' to the 2nd livr. Monogr. d'Echinod. ; while 

 Mycrocyphus, Tripneustes, Toxopneustes, and Stomopneustes, which 

 accompany them and are designated in precisely the same manner 

 by reference to a well-known species, are all quoted in the Nom. 

 Zool. as 4th livraison, where they also occur as well as Salmacis and 

 Holopneustes. The last two genera appear in the 4th livr. for the 

 first time ; yet Salmacis alone is correctly quoted in the 'Nomen- 

 clator,' while Holopneustes is omitted and is not found in the ' No- 

 menclator ' at all. 



On p. 657, Mr. Bell further says " the name variegatus is never 

 used by any writer on the genus Tripneustes subsequent to Leske 

 and prior to Alex. Agassiz." 



I must again refer Mr. Bell to p. 35 of Chronological List ; there 

 he will find that I had seen the original of Klein's Cidaris variegata, 

 and naturally retained that name in preference to angulosus. It is 

 therefore obvious that, on the principles which have guided me in the 

 ' Revision,' the name which I must use is variegata and not angu- 

 losus. 



I am perfectly aware that many and very annoying mistakes (of 

 omission and commission) have crept into the 'Revision ' — which by 

 the way was published in 1872-74, and not in 18/2-73 as is stated 

 by Mr. Bell on p. 249 ; no one will be more pleased to see them 

 corrected than myself, even when shown up so pointedly as is done bv 

 Mr. Bell. y r i l 



I fail to see that Mr. Bell has by his criticisms of the nomencla- 

 ture of the ' Revision ' estabhshed a single one of his points or supplied 

 any material not already there, though evidently it is not in a form 

 suited to his wishes. I wish therefore once for all to protest against 

 any further misrepresentations of the facts on his part. 



As the Synonymy of the ' Revision ' is based upon specimens and not 

 upon names, I have endeavoured so to arrange the Chronological Lists, 

 Synonymy, and Synonymic Index as to leave Echinologists fr.ee to 

 adopt any name suited to their views of nomenclature and not to 

 force upon them my peculiar views. I have also attempted to 

 supply the materials necessary for independent investigation with a 

 minimum waste of time. 



Judging from the criticisms I have thus far received from other 

 naturalists, I liave no cause to complain of the time spent on the 

 ' Revision.' although it is plain that I cannot hope the 'Revision ' will be 

 of any use to one who, like Mr. Bell, is of opinion that " for the 



