1882. ] PROF. F. J. BELL ON THE GENUS PSOLUS. 643 
there he makes no use of his own name Cuvieria, but applies that of 
Berenice to a genus to which, as Prof. Haeckel (see his Syst. Med. i. 
p- 152) assures us, his earlier and beautifully figured Cuvieria 
carisochroma would belong. 
It follows therefore that Jager (De Holoth. p. {o) is right in 
saying, ‘Cuvier hujus tribus autor est,” and that de Bfainville (Actin. 
p- 191), Brandt (Prodr. p. 47), and Selenka (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Zool. 
xvii. p. 343) are, in citing Péron as the author of the name, almost 
as wrong as Haeckel, who (Joe. ci¢.), in writing “'Trotzdem hat spiter 
(1817) Péron denselben Gattungnamen fiir ein Echinoderm Psolus 
eingefiihrt,” and Verrill (Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. x. p. 353), by adding 
1817 to the name Péron, commit the additional error of forgetting 
that it was seven years earlier, that is in 1810, that there was lost to 
science an investigator so enthusiastic and so distinguished that one 
feels the chilly formality of the terms in which regret was expressed 
at his death—“ aussi affligeante pour les amis des sciences qu'elle 
le fut pour les siens propres”’ (Pref. to vol. ii. of the ‘ Voyage’). 
Curiously enough, the history of the name does not end here. 
Just as Cuvieria dropped out from Péron’s names for Medusz, so 
did Cuvier’s picture of Hol. cuvieria, which appeared in the 1817 
and 1829 editions of the ‘ Régne Animal,’ disappear from the plates 
of the magnificent edition of that monumental work which we owe 
to the devotion of a “ réunion de disciples de Cuvier.”* It did not 
disappear, however, before it gave rise to one of the most curious 
mistakes committed by a famous naturalist : a reference to the account 
given by de Blainville in the Dict. Sc. Nat. xxi. (1821) pp. 315-317, 
shows quite clearly that that distinguished student mistook the oral 
for the anal pole of the body. As the description is rare, if we may 
judge from the fact that it was not seen by Prof. Semper (Hol. 
p- 241), I propose to quote it in full :— 
“ H. cuvieria, G. Cuv. Régne Anim. pl. xv. 9. Corps ovale, comme 
rugueux, l’anus supérieur entouré de cing tentacules squamiformes ; 
les tentacules de ]a bouche au nombre de dix (?) et presque filiformes. 
Des mers de I’ Australasie (?).”” 
A comparison of this description with the figure of Cuvier and with 
that given for what is clearly the same form by Selenka (Zeits, wiss. 
Zool. xviii. pl. viii. fig. 1), who calls it Stolinus cataphractus, will 
abundantly prove the statement now made. ‘That being so, it is clear 
that the term cuvierta has no claim for application to the species, 
de Blainville’sas much as Jiger’s “ Beschreibung”’ being “ ungiiltig,”” 
in consequence of which, to use the words of Semper (loc. ct.), 
*‘ wird der Selenka’sche Artname ‘ cataphractus’ eintreten miissen.” 
Perhaps, indeed, no creature has been more misrepresented ; for C. A. 
Lesueur * says that “the feet are placed behind.” 
After a discussion which, however barren in the eyes of a 
naturalist, is not without necessity for the work of the systematist, 
1 Paris, Victor Masson (1849), in 22 vols. 
? Journal Acad. Nat. Sc. Philadelphia, iv. p. 156. It is curious to note that 
of the ‘ Holothuries Cuviéries’ of Lesson, not one is a Psolus (see Cent. Zool. 
p. 239 
2/- 
