Dr. R. von Lendenfeld on the Chalininae. 429 



have no chelge. In their Report the following are described 

 as forms of Desmacidonidee without chelae : Echinoclathria 

 glabra, Agelas, and EcMnodictyum, As the authors no doubt 

 knew very well, there are a number of such besides those 

 three contained in the ' Challenger ' collection. No doubt 

 these are true Desmacidonidae, 



To make these important exceptions appear less conspi- 

 cuous Ridley and Dendy say{Z. c. p. 62) in a little footnote — 

 nothing is said about any exceptions in the diagnosis of the, 

 genus — that they have '^^ included one or two species without 

 chelas, on the supposition that they have had them, and sub- 

 sequently lost them.," m the family Desmacidonidas. This 

 method of shelving .one species and tivo genera described, 

 besides many more no,t in the ' Challenger ' collection, which 

 appear inconvenient to a preconceived idea as " one or two " 

 species, " gives us/' to Mse Mr. Dendy's own words (p. 336), 

 " some insight into his method of working." 



The inconsistency is in all cases apparent, but it is no 

 ■fault of the authors. The method of arranging organisms in 

 families, genera, species, &c. is, as carried out by us, unnatural, 

 and the faults which result from it must be ascribed to the 

 ■method employed, and not to the biologists who use it. 



1 do not see why the Homorrhaphidaj should, not comprise 

 sponges with diiferentiated microsclera, as the other two 

 lamilies comprise forms without them. The arrangement is, 

 in consequence of this want of precision, open to objection ; 

 but it was not 1 who established it, but Ridley and Dendy. 

 The precision of the other families would not be increased if 

 the sponges referred to were removed from this family. 



It is all very well to say that the amount of spongin has 

 only very little systematic significance, and that this has been 

 " demonstrated again and again." I also agree with Mr. Dendy 

 that the amount of spongin has no great significance ; but it 

 must be borne in mind that F. E. Schulze (' Challenger ' 

 Report on the Hexactinellida, p. 497) attaches a good deal of 

 importance to it ; and Schulze probably knows more about 

 sponges, and certainly has a much more matured judgment, 

 than my friend Mr. Dendy and myself put together. It gives 

 me the impression that Mr. Dendy has allowed himself to be 

 carried away by his own strong convictions, and he inveighs 

 against my arrangement — which, like all similar arrange- 

 ments, is a subjective idea, and doubtless faulty and bad — 

 with a force worthy of a better cause. 



Mr. Dendy attacks my method of nomenclature most 

 unmercifully. He persistently closes his eyes, however, to 

 the logical principle which I maintain in it, and thinks it 



