Natural History of Hast Finmark. 99 
to determine, that margin passes inside and not outside of 
these little elongate pores. 
This species is, I think, entitled to generic rank; the 
character of the front wall, with the Cribrilinidan portion not 
extending to its margin, and the peculiar facies of that 
portion, the vicarious avicularia, the well-developed operculum, 
and perhaps, above all, the processes on the side of the oral 
opening for the hingement of the operculum, seem to point 
to the reasonableness of adopting Jullien’s genus Figularia 
to receive it; and the same author’s genus Puellina (type 
P. Gattye) might be adopted for these species which are 
furnished with lateral papille. 
«¢ LEPRALIA.” 
When Johnston (Brit. Zooph. edit. 1. 1838, p. 277) insti- 
tuted the genus Lepralia, after stating that Berenicea, 
Fleming, had been previously employed, he added : “ Milne- 
Edwards names the genus ‘ Eschareides, but neither this 
nor Escharina, another of his names, can be adopted, since 
some naturalists use the terminations -oddes and -ina as family 
appellations. Moreover, what saith Linnzus? ‘ Generic 
names including other generic names are unworthy of a 
scientific nomenclature.’ And, again, ‘Generic names in 
-oides are prohibited’ (see Young’s Med. Literature, p. 28).” 
Here is his reason for giving a new name to his genus. It 
was a valid reason at the time, though not according to 
more recent usage. Lepralia is a name so old and so 
familiar that it can hardly be dropped as a synonym; and 
it would scarcely be justice to Johnston to omit its use. 
In what sense, then, must it be employed? Here comes in 
no small difficulty. It is a primary law of nomenclature 
that some species which Johnston placed in it when he 
instituted the genus must be the type. The species thus 
included were as follows :—L. hyalina (Linn.), nitida (Flem- 
ing), coccinea (Lamk.), Johnston, variolosa, Johnston, ciliata 
(Pallas), trispinosa, Johnston, and ammersa (Fleming). The 
name used as Smitt and Hincks employed it is not Lepralia, 
Johnston ; and the definition of Hincks excludes from it 
all Johuston’s species. As Jullien has written*: “Genre 
Lepralia, Th. Hincks (not Johnston, 1838), 1880.—Cet 
ancien genre de Johnston a été entiérement bouleversé par 
Th. Hincks, et ne devrait plus exister aujourd’hui.” Of 
the species which Johnston placed in his Lepralia, hyalina 
* Miss. Scient. Cap Horn, Bryozoaires, 1888, vol i. p. 57, 
1S 
