18G8.] DR. J. S. BOWERBANK ON SPONGES. 133 



That MM. Quoy and Gaimard did not correctly comprehend the 

 nature and structure of their species, A, speciosum, is no reason why 

 the name they assigned to it should be put on one side, and that of 

 Eupleitella, founded on error by Professor Owen, substituted for it. 

 Or if this want of knowledge of a type specimen be sufficient to ab- 

 rogate the author's title, then Dr. Gray's genus Aphrocaltistes, de- 

 scribed in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1858, p. 1 14, as a calcareous spono-e, when 

 in reality it is a siliceo-fibrous one, must fall by the same law. 



If M. de Blainville has chosen his specimen to illustrate the genus 

 Alcyoncellum injudiciously in his ' Manuel d'Actinologie,' that is no 

 reason for abrogating the name originally assigned to their genus by 

 MM. Quoy and Gaimard in their previously published work descrip- 

 tive of the zoology of the voyage of the Astrolabe ; and there can be 

 no mistake as to which specimen is really the type of the genus, as 

 they have figured it in the atlas to that work, plate 26, Zoophytes, 

 fig. 3. 



Dr. Gray's second subclass, Porifera calcarea, is treated in the 

 same unscrupulous manner, the only species left to represent 

 Grantia being G. ciliata. Grantia ensata is turned into Ute ensata ; 

 Grantia compressa into Artynes compressa. Leucosolenia, Leuconia, 

 and Lucogypsia fare better, as they escape alteration. 



If the course of proceeding adopted by Dr. Gray in the construc- 

 tion of his proposed new arrangement of the sponges is to be con- 

 sidered legitimate, if it be tolerated that any naturalist shall get 

 sight surreptitiously of the specimens belonging to another, and then 

 describe, name, and publish them, as in the case of his genus Astro- 

 stoma, page 514, unknown to the owner, and without permission 

 so to use them, if it be considered right that from the figure of 

 a single spiculum of a sponge, published in illustration of organic 

 structural peculiarities by one author, any one has a right to name 

 genericaliy and specifically the specimen whence it is derived and 

 without having ever seen it, and thus to forestall, haphazard, the 

 manuscript descriptions of the owner of the specimens, nothing for 

 the future will be easier than to establish new genera and construct 

 new systems of arrangement ; but then the question will naturally 

 arise, of what use are such systems to practical naturalists ? This 

 question Dr. Gray himself answers in page 495 of his paper, in 

 treating of Nardo's ' Spongiariorum Classificatio,' where he observes, 

 " Almost all the species mentioned as belonging to the genera are 

 new and not described in this paper ; so that it is impossible to de- 

 termine what they are except for such persons as have specimens 

 named by the author." This observation of Dr. Gray respecting 

 Nardo's species is perfectly correct ; but the Doctor does not seem to 

 be aware that it applies quite as justly to the genera and species 

 which he has named in his own paper, without having seen the sponges 

 whence his names are derived. I will not comment especially on 

 theauthor's choice of generic names, as he has bespoken our indvilgenco 

 on that subject at page 500 ; but they strongly remind me of an oral 

 tradition among the old officers of the natural-history department 

 of the British Museum, that in bygone days one of the principals of 



