1882.] PROF. F. J. BELL ON THE GENUS PSOLTJS. 643 



there he makes no use of his own name Cuvieria, but applies that of 

 Berenice to a genus to which, as Prof. Haeckel (see his Syst. Med. i. 

 p. 152) assures us, his earUer and beautifully figured Cuvieria 

 carisochroma would belong. j 



It follows therefore that Jager (De Holoth. p. 30) is right in 

 saying, " Cuvier hujus tribus autor est," and that de Biaiuville (Aetin. 

 p. 191), Brandt (Prodr. p. 47), and Selenka (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. 

 xvii. p. 343) are, in citing Peron as the author of the name, almost 

 as wrong as Haeckel, who {loc. cif.), in writing "Trotzdem hat spater 

 (1817) Peron denselben Grattungnamen fiir ein Echiuoderm Psolus 

 eingeflihrt," and Verrill(Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. x. p. 353), by adding 

 1817 to the name Peron, commit the additional error of forgetting 

 that it was seven years earlier, that is in 1810, that there was lost to 

 science an investigator so enthusiastic and so distinguished that one 

 feels the chilly formality of the terms in which regret was expressed 

 at his death — " aussi afHigeante pour les amis des sciences qu'elle 

 le fut pour les siens propres" (Pref. to vol. ii. of the 'Voyage'). 



Curiously enough, the history of the name does not end here. 

 Just as Cuvieria dropped out from Peron's names for Medusae, so 

 did Cuvier's picture of Hoi. cuvieria, which appeared in the 1817 

 and 1829 editions of the 'Regue Animal,' disappear from the plates 

 of the magnificent edition of that monumental work which we owe 

 to the devotion of a " reunion de disciples de Cuvier." ^ It did not 

 disappear, however, before it gave rise to one of the most curious 

 mistakes committed by a famous naturalist : a reference to the account 

 given by de Blainville in the Diet. Sc. Nat. xxi.(182I) pp. 315-317, 

 shows quite clearly that that distinguished student mistook the oral 

 for the anal pole of the body. As the description is rare, if we may 

 judge from the fact that it was not seen by Prof. Semper (Hoi. 

 p. 241), I propose to quote it in full : — 



" H. cuvieria, G. Cuv. Eegue Anim. pi. xv. 9. Corps ovale, comme 

 rugueux, I'anus superieur entoure de cinq tentacules squamiformes ; 

 les tentacules de la bouche au nombre de dix (?) et presque filiformes. 

 Des mers de rAustralasie(?)." 



A comparison of this description with the figure of Cuvier and with 

 that given for what is clearly the same form by Selenka (Zeits. wiss. 

 Zool. xviii. pi. viii. fig. 1), who calls it StoUnus cataphractus, will 

 abundantly prove the statement now made. That being so, it is clear 

 that the term cuvieria has no claim for application to the species, 

 de Blainville' s as much as Jager's"Beschreibung" being "ungiiltig," 

 in consequence of which, to use the words of Semper {loc, cit.\ 

 " wird der Selenka'sche Artname 'cataphractus^ eintreten miissen." 

 Perhaps, indeed, no creature has been more misrepresented ; for C. A. 

 Lesueur - says that " the feet are placed behind." 



After a discussion which, however barren in the eyes of a 

 naturalist, is not without necessity for the work of the systematist, 



^ Paris, Victor Masson (1849), in 22 vols. 



" Journal Acad. Nat. So. Philadelphia, iv. p. 156. It is curious to note that 

 of the ' Holothuries Cuvieries ' of Lesson, not one is a Psolus (see Cent. Zool. 

 p. 239). 



1- 



