132 Prof, F. J. Bell on the Laganidse. 



this had been adopted without further proof by Gray, Desor, 

 Michelin, and Hupe, who have independently established a 

 distinct genus, based upon the peculiar position of the genital 

 opening, far away from the abactinal system, in the inter- 

 ambulacra ; but as we have a true Laganum in which the 

 genital openings (L. Putnami) have the same extrapetaloid 

 position, this feature alone cannot be of any generic value." 



I need not stop to point out that the concluding portion of 

 the sentences just quoted appears to be an example of a 

 cyclical method which, however admirable in an ancient poet, 

 fails to carry conviction to a modern scientific audience ; but 

 I am anxious to put in a clear light exactly what the natural- 

 ists just named really did do, and to relieve them from the 

 charge of hastily erecting genera that has been made against 

 them. 



Taking first the case of Dr. Gray, we find that, in his 

 i Catalogue of the Recent Echinida ' (1855), pp. 8-13 are 

 occupied by an account of the genus Laganum, which is 

 divided into three sections. The definition of the third runs 

 thus : — 



*** Genital pores 4, large {posterior wanting) , far apart, 

 and between the upper part of the ambulacra. Peronella. 



The zoologist who is acquainted with Dr. Gray's works 

 will know that a name is thus not unfrequently given by that 

 naturalist to a division of a genus. A definite reason for the 

 course adopted can hardly be given ; but a reasonable method 

 of procedure will generally allow the student to discover the 

 amount of value which Dr. Gray himself attached to these 

 names. A reference to p. 3 exhibits to us a " Synopsis ot 

 the Genera/' and there Laganum stands undivided, and is not 

 accompanied by the term Peronella ; a reference to p. 66 gives 

 us a systematic index, and there 12 species are ascribed to 

 the genus Laganum, the last being written u 12. L. Peronii. 

 Dr. Gray therefore did not establish, with, or without " further 

 proof," a genus Peronella. 



Michelin's genus 

 a species with the 



s (Polyaster} was not even established on 

 genital openings in a il peculiar position ; 

 for his figure clearly shows the type to be no other than L. de- 

 cagonalis. With this the genus of Dujardin & Hupe is abso- 

 lutely identical, their name Michelinia being substituted in 

 consequence of the prior application of the term Polyaster to a 

 starfish. 



- Neither Michelin nor Dujardin & Hupe formed, therefore, 

 genera on the extrapetaloid position of the genital pores ; 1 

 should presume, however, as Hupe is referred to without the 



