ArGUST 9, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



185 



same size as those of Ellis and Everhart.' 

 Type specimens have not been seen by the 

 writer. The pycnidia are somewhat larger on 

 the fruits and branches, but the spores are 

 about the same size as those on the crab-apple 

 leaves. The following are the spore measure- 

 ments: From the same crab-apple tree — 

 leaves, 5-6 X 6-9 /x; fruits, 5-6X8-9^; 

 branches, 6-7 X 9 /*■ From the same com- 

 mon apple tree — petioles, 5-6 X 'i^'~9 /* ; fruits, 

 5-6 X 8-10 fi ; branches, 5-7.5 X T-5-10 fi. - The 

 largest spore measurements are mostly from 

 fresh spores developed in the moist chamber. 

 These spore measurements agree with those of 

 ClintonV " fruit-blotch " fungus. 



From the above, it seems evident that the 

 " fruit-blotch " disease of apples is caused by 

 Phyllosticta soUtaria E. & E. and that the 

 fungus causing it may occur on either the 

 leaves, fruits, or branches (or on one or more 

 of them at the same time) of the wild crab- 

 apple {Malus coronaria (L.) Mill.) and the 

 common apple (Malus Malvs (L.) Britton). 



Specimens of the fungus on branches can 

 be. furnished to persons requesting them. 



John L. Sheldon 



West Virginia Aokictjltxieal Experiment 

 Station, Moegantown, W. Va., 

 May 25, 1907 



holothurian names 



An excellent memoir on " The Holothurians 

 of the Hawaiian Islands " by Dr. Walter K. 

 Fisher, of Stanford University, has just been 

 published " from the Proceedings of the United 

 States National Museum." As I had been in- 

 formed that Dr. Fisher had fully subscribed 

 to all the nomenclatural rules of the American 

 Ornithologists' Union, I was curious to learn 

 whether he had applied those rules to the 

 nomenclature of the group in question. Tears 

 ago, being much interested in the echinoderms, 

 I looked up various questions, with the result 

 of finding unsatisfactory conditions in the 

 naming of the group. The full history of the 

 various episodes has not been given in the 

 current histories by Ludwig (pp. 303-316) and 

 others. I call attention to some here. 



'Ellis, J. B., and Everhart, B. M., Proo. Phil. 

 Acad., 430, 1895. 



' Loc. cit. 



Dr. Fisher has referred to " Holothuria LiN- 

 N^us, Systema Naturae, 10th ed., 1758," as 

 the source for that name. Evidently he had 

 not consulted the volume cited, for there is no 

 mention in it of any animal now called Holo- 

 thuria. 



In the tenth edition (I., p. 657) Linnseus 

 defined his genus " 260. Holothuria " as fol- 

 lows: "Corpus gibbum, nudum, ovale, natans. 

 Tentacula ssepius ad alteram estremitatem, 

 insequalia numero et figura." He referred 

 to it four species, (1) physalis, a Physaliid or 

 "Portuguese man-of-war," and three other 

 animals having no resemblance to holothu- 

 rians. Unquestionably, the type of the genus 

 and description was the first species. 



In the twelfth edition (I., p. 1089) Linnaeus 

 modified his definition and, while including 

 the four species of the tenth, added five spe- 

 cies, (1) frondosa (Cuciimaria), (2) Phanta- 

 ■pus (Psolus), (3) tremula (Holothuria of 

 moderns), (8) pentactes (Cucumaria) and (9) 

 priapus (a worm). This is the starting point 

 of the ordinary holothurian history. 



One naturalist who was aware of these facts 

 would not modify the nomenclature to cor- 

 respond. It remains to be seen whether Dr. 

 Walter Fisher or Dr. Hubert L. Clark will. 

 The case is clear. If the tenth edition of the 

 Systema is accepted as the starting-point, 

 certainly Holothuria can not be retained with 

 its modern limits, since the original was un- 

 accompanied by reference to a single repre- 

 sentative and the diagnosis is inapplicable. 

 One of the synonyms of the modern genus 

 must then replace Holothuria. Fistularia, the 

 oldest, can not be used, as it was preoccupied. 

 There are many later names, more or less ap- 

 plicable, but which one shall be used will de- 

 pend on the limits given to the genus. If we 

 accept it with the extent given by Ludwig, 

 Bohadschia of Jager (1833) may be taken. 

 If it is limited by the exclusion of the group 

 so named, Trepang (Jager, 1833), Sporadipus 

 (Brandt, 1835), Thelenota (Brandt, 1835) and 

 several others are available, according to cir- 

 cumstances. 



It may be added that Actinopyga should not 

 be used for the genus first named Millleria by 

 Jager, as Brandt had long before published a 



