76 Notes and Comments. 



some of King's original types are missing. Perhaps the 

 following extracts from Dr. Bather's ' Summary and Con- 

 clusions,' will give an idea of the intricacies of the nomenclature 

 problem, and illustrate the necessity of something being done to 

 assist ordinary mortals to attach a correct name to a specimen 

 when the}^ find one : — 



' CONCLUSIONS ' 



' Cidaris keyserlingi Geinitz, which has frequently been 

 referred to Eocidaris, is discussed, and fresh details of its struc- 

 ture are given. Numerous topotypes of Cidaris verneuiliana 

 King are described and figured, and that species is proved a 

 synonym of C. keyserlingi. The evidence thus adduced shows 

 that these fossils belong to Miocidaris Doederlein {1887). 

 Miocidaris is re-diagnosed, and M. cassiani nom. nov. [^Cidaris 

 klipsteini Desor, non. Marcou) taken as a genotype. The 

 genus is distinguished from the recent Cidaris. Other species 

 examined and referred to Miocidaris are Cidaris snbcoronata 

 Munst., C. grandccva Goldf. on the evidence of Quenstedt's 

 specimens (1875), and C. coceva Ouenst. Others are alluded to. 

 It follows that there is no necessity for Eotiaris Lambert 

 founded to receive Miocidaris keyserlingi. It also follows that 

 Cidaris verneuiliana King and C. coceva Ouenst. cannot belong 

 to Permocidaris Lambert, a genus that rests on the inadequately 

 described Cidaris forhesiana De Kon.' ^^'ith such facts as these 

 we can pity, the poor museum curator who is asked the simple 

 question — ' What is the name of this fossil ? 



SKELETON OF A SOWERBV'S WHALE. 



Sir William Turner favours us with a reprint of his paper on 

 ' The Skeleton of a Sowerby's Whale, Mesoplodon bidens, 

 stranded at St. Andrews, and the Morphology of the Manus in 

 Mesoplodon, Hyperoodon ?nd the Delphinidse.' * In this 

 \-aluable memoir Sir William gives detailed descriptions of the 

 anatomical characteristics of an adult fem^ale Sowerby's Whale 

 stranded in St. Andrew's Bay in May 1908, and compares it 

 with other specimens stranded on Scottish shores during the 

 past century, most of which he has described. In view of the 

 comparatively rare occasions upon which it is possible to 

 obtain proper scientific descriptions of these interesting 

 mammals, Sir William Turner's pioneer work in this direction 

 is all the more valuable. 



* Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., \o\. 29, Pt. 7, No. 41, pp. 6S7-720. 



Naturalist, 



