132 DR. J. S. BOWERBANK ON SPONGES. [Feb 13, 



discojjhora. Dr. Gray, in page 549, " 4. Erylus,'" also introduces us 

 to a new form of ovarium thus, " with oblong ovisacs ;" but I presume 

 the author means oval ovisacs, not with flat sides aud rectangular 

 ends as in an oblong figure. 



Dr. Gray's genus Placospongia, page 549, described by him in 

 Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1867, p. 128, is neither more nor less than 

 Geodia carinata, Phil. Trans. 1858, p. 314, tab. 36. fig. 42. 

 Many years since, I found specimens of this species arranged in the 

 cases at the British Museum among the corals, and I pointed them 

 out to Dr. Baird as placed there in error ; and he immediately re- 

 moved them from the case. 1 have several specimens based on 

 Oculina rosea from the South Seas, and their history in MS. The 

 species is structurally in perfect accordance with the genus Geodia, 

 although very discrepant in external form from the majority of the 

 other species of that rather numerous genus. The 18th family in 

 Dr. Gray's proposed arrangement is Potamospongia, containing the 

 Spongillidse, which he treats in his accustomed style, dividing this 

 eminently natural genus into seven divisions and adding to them as 

 an eighth one my genus Diplodemia, a sponge of very different 

 organization, the skeleton having an abundance of kerato-fibrous 

 structure in its composition. 



Page 557. Fam. 2. Alcyoncellidce. Dr. Gray describes the genus 

 Alcyoncellum thus — " Sponge soft, subgelatinous, slightly branched. 



" Alcyoncellum et Alcyoncella, Blainville, Man. d'Actin. p. 529, 

 1832 (not Milne-Edwards, 1835, Bowerbank, nor Owen, Nardo, nor 

 O. Schmidt). 



" Alcyoncellum gelatinosum, Blainv. Man. d'Actin. p. 529, tab. 92. 

 fig. 5." 



From this quotation we should naturally imagine that all preceding 

 writers who have referred to this genus, as founded by MM. Quoy 

 et Gaimard, were wrong ; and that it was originally established by 

 Blainville in his Man. d'Actin., published 1834, instead of by MM, 

 Quoy et Gaimard in their ' Zoology of the Voyage of the Astrolabe,' 

 published in 1830, and that Dr. Gray was the only writer who had 

 attributed the genus to its true founder, M. de Blainville. But on 

 reference to the work of that author, we find that he makes the fol- 

 lowing observations regarding it in page 529 : — 



" Observ. — Ce genre a ete ctabli par MM. Quoy et Gaimard pour un 

 corps organise, rapporte dans leur dernier voyage, et qu'ils ont bien 

 voulu soumettre a notre observation," &c. After this, what are we to 

 say to the correctness of Dr. Gray's quotations, and to the laws of 

 nomenclature he would fain establish by his sole declaration ? In 

 such matters, and on such authority, are we to submit to his saying, 

 " I am Sir Oracle ; and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark "? or 

 are we, in accordance with the excellent and just rules recommended 

 by the committee for nomenclature of the British Association, to 

 render justice to those authors by the permanent adoption of the 

 names they have given to genera and species, which they have been 

 the first to make known to science ? 



