Correspondence — Dr. F. A. Bather. 287 



numerous specific names it contains, and the following notes would 

 seem to settle the matter in a fairly satisfactory manner : — 



On October 13th, 1849, Edward Forbes wrote to Owen saying he 

 had just heard of the death of Dixon and that his part of the MS. 

 could be finished in two or three days. On February 2nd, 1850, 

 Gr. B. Holmes wrote to Owen asking how Dixon's work is getting on. 

 On December 30th, 1850, George Landseer, the artist, wrote to Owen 

 saying " what a nice book Mr. Dixon's makes, a very useful one 

 . . . I was looking over it the other day, and it seems carried 

 out with great care." W. H. Fitton, on February 4th, 1852, wrote 

 to Owen as follows : " During some weeks of the last summer made 

 an acquaintance with the widow of your late friend Mr. Dixon. 

 I obtained from her a co-^j of her husband's book on the fossils of the 

 chalk, etc., at the usual bookseller's price of £3 3s. Oi." Fitton 

 further notes that her agreement with Longman expired in December, 

 1851, and with his usual kindness suggests that Mrs. Dixon should 

 not be allowed to be at any loss over its production. Further, Messrs. 

 Longman, Green, & Co. have favoured me with a letter dated 10th 

 March, 1908, in which they say that Dixon's Sussex "was published 

 in December, 1850." 



I think we may therefore, on this evidence, safely accept the date 

 1850, as stated on the title-page. C. Davies Sheeboen-. 



THE NOMENCLATORAL HISTORY OF THE CORAL CANINIA. 



SiR,^ — In the April number of the Geological Magazine, pp. 158-171, 

 Mr. R. G. Carruthers, in addition to his admirable description of 

 Caninia and of its contained species, enters fully into the question of 

 its nomenclature. Since this question has given rise to some contro- 

 versy, and is by no means easy of settlement, a consensus of opinion 

 on the subject is desirable. If I venture to intrude on a field 

 outside my own special work, it is only as a student of nomenclature 

 and bibliography, and in response to a definite request for my opinion 

 made last November by Dr. Arthur Yaughan. 



After looking up the literature with the help of my colleague, 

 Mr. W. D. Lang, I sent Dr. Vaughan a long letter, which came to the 

 same conclusions regarding the interpretation of Caninia and of its 

 genotype as those based by Mr. Carruthers on his independent studies, 

 and thus brought Dr. Vaughan round to the same view. Mr. Carruthers 

 has asked me to publish my confirmation of his conclusion, and to 

 add one or two details that had escaped him. 



The species Caninia cornucopice does not date from the Congres de 

 Turin. The report of that Congress appeared in Aiti riunione 

 saienziati Ital., ii, Torino, 1841, pp. 227-228. Caninia was there 

 defined as a fossil ally of Cyatho'phyllum, distinguished by infundi- 

 buliform tabulae. JSTo species was mentioned. The name C. cornucopim 

 therefore dates from the paragraph by Paul Gervais, Diet. Sci. ]S"at. 

 (De Blainville), Suppl. I, p. 485. This paragraph is quoted in full by 

 Mr. Carruthers (p. 166). The life of the Supplement was cut short, and 

 the plate therein referred to was never issued. In subsequent editions 

 of the " Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles," Caninia continues to be 

 quoted by Gervais, with mention of C. cornucopim as the only species. 



