Dr. K. von Lendenfeld on the Chalininge, 431 



averse to the certainly illogical, although perhaps easy, 

 way of naming things in vogue among many naturalists, 

 including Mr. Dendy. I do, however, by no means imagine 

 that I have established this rational system of nomencla- 

 ture, as I will call it. It was established long ago, and has 

 been most carefully utilized for practical work by Hackel in 

 his ' System der Medusen.' I do not think that any differ- 

 ence at all exists between Hackel's method and mine, and I 

 am fui'ther not aware that I have made any mistakes in 

 the nomenclature either in my paper on the Chalinids or 

 elsewhere. 



It seems to me as if Mr. Dendy wished to veil his real 

 attack on the principle involved by the feigned polemic 

 against my Chalinid nomenclature. Well, I suppose every- 

 thing is fair in love and in war ! But somehow I do not like 

 this perversion of the real issue. 



To show the fallacies of the system of noiuenclature advo- 

 cated and employed by Mr. Dendy one need only look in the 

 Report on the ^ Challenger ' Monaxonida by Ridley and 

 Dendy. The volume opens at page 117. There a species is 

 described as lophon Pattersoni, Bowerbank. On the fol- 

 lowing page a variety '^Paftersoni " is mentioned. A com- 

 parison of Bowerbank's original diagnosis shows that his 

 species Halichondria Pattersoni is nearly identical witli the 

 variety Pattersoni. The species lophon Pattersoni as estab- 

 lished by Ridley and Dendy differs entirely from Bower- 

 bank^s sponge, and it is simply untrue that the species 

 described by Ridley and Dendy as lophon Pattersoni is 

 synonymous with Halichondria Pattersoni, or was ever esta- 

 blished or conceived by Bowerbank. The species has been 

 established by Ridley and Dendy, and their names should be 

 attached to the specific name. Halichondria Pattersoni, 

 Bowerbank, should be given as a synonym of the variety, 

 lophon Pattersoni, var, Pattersoni [q\c\). 



As none of the previously described species coincide with 

 the lophon Pattersoni of Ridley and Dendy, a neic specific 

 name ought to have been given. Any one of the old names 

 would give a wrong idea, and it would be illogical to use it, 

 as it is obviously illogical to replace the whole by a part. 



Such tamperings with the laws of thought have already 

 brought our science into the contempt of mathematicians and 

 philosophers. Logic must be sternly established. I regret 

 that my friend Mr. Dendy and I hold such diametrically 

 opposite views ; and I can only answer to his statement 

 (p. 337) " Whatever may be the real name of this compre- 

 hensive species, it certainly cannot be ' Ceraochalina papil- 



