786 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1013 



not be regarded as " obviously obscene " or 

 rather let us say, immodest. My position, in 

 brief, is that we have in Linnseus's reference 

 to Baster's figure very clear evidence of what 

 he intended the term feliniis to imply, and, 

 this being so, the application of his term 

 senilis also becomes clear. I prefer Linnseus's 

 identifications of his own species to any specu- 

 lations as to other possibilities. 



I am quite prepared to assume responsibility 

 for having advocated the revival of the Lin- 

 nean specific names for the two species in ques- 

 tion, but Professor Verrill asserts that I also 

 advocate the adoption of Priapus equinus for 

 the form that he prefers to term Actinia 

 mesembryanthemum (properly mesemhrian- 

 themum). I do not recall ever having advo- 

 cated the use of the original Linnean name for 

 this species, and, indeed, in the paper which 

 has become the object for Professor Verrill's 

 fulminations, it is only once mentioned and 

 then as Actinia (Priapus) equina. I gave the 

 name that form expressly to indicate that 

 while recognizing the priority of Priapus 

 according to the International Rules, I hoped 

 that the long-established name of Actinia 

 would not be dropped from our nomenclature. 

 Apparently my mode of expressing this idea 

 has been somewhat too subtle. It would, in- 

 deed, be unfortunate if Actinia, with all its 

 associations, should be obliterated and it would 

 also be unfortunate if the familiar A. equina 

 should disappear. For Professor Verrill's 

 statement that " the leading European author- 

 ities, familiar with the actinians of the same 

 region, have never been able to agree as to his 

 (i. e., Linnseus's) species " is quite erroneous 

 so far as this species is concerned, and equally 

 untrue is ,the statement that " most writers, 

 before McMurrieh, have wisely rejected the 

 names," mainly on the ground of their im- 

 modesty. I have taken the trouble to look up 

 the references to the species now under con- 

 sideration during the twenty-five years that 

 preceded the publication of my paper and find 

 that in thirty-eight it is quoted as A. equina 

 and only in four as A. mesembryanthemum, 

 although in several the latter name is given as 



a synonym for equina. Apparently there are 

 quite a number of zoologists unburdened by 

 such an exquisite sense of modesty as would 

 compel them to reject this Linnean name, and 

 the most convincing reason for the non-use of 

 senilis and felinus has not been that stated by 

 Professor VerriU, but, as a review of the litera- 

 ture will clearly show, the confusion in their 

 application which early arose and to which I 

 have referred in my paper. 



J. Playfair MoMurrich - 



THE FANNY EMDEN PRIZE OF THE PARIS ACADEMY 



To THE Editor of Science: It may be of 

 interest to you to record the fact that the 

 Academy of Sciences of the French Institute 

 has published a statement in regard to the 

 award of the Eanny Emden prize for the year 

 1913. This prize is of the value of 3,000 

 francs and is the result of a bequest made by 

 Mile. Juliette de Eeinaeh of 50,000 francs, the 

 interest of which is available every two years. 

 The prize is to be awarded for the best work 

 " in the field of hypnotism, suggestion or in 

 general, of physiological action which may be 

 exercised at a distance upon a living organ- 

 ism." The fund was made available in 1911. 

 Thirteen candidates presented researches, but 

 no prize was awarded. In 1913 the prize was 

 divided, 2,000 francs to M. Emile Boirac and 

 1,000 francs to M. J. Oehorowicz. 



The peculiar wording of the award lies in 

 the fact that the Academy makes these awards 

 as encouragement for meritorious work, but 

 sets forth that neither of the essays submitted 

 goes very far towards proving its thesis. In- 

 deed, the report rather decidedly indicates that 

 they contribute rather little towards the estab- 

 lishment of any conclusion. The report cites 

 one or two experiments of M. Boirac which 

 are certainly questionable, and require extra- 

 ordinary confirmation before they can be re- 

 garded as evidential in the sense presented. 



Nothing is indicated in the report to show 

 that a research proving the absence of any 

 such action " at a distance," or its extreme 

 improbability, would not be considered; but 

 the very wording of the original bequest seems 



