310 SIR SIDNEY F. HARMER ON 
Flabellaris, Waters, 1898, J. L. S. xxvi. p. 672. — Based on several recent species, but 
•with no clear indication which of them are to be included. Meiiipea flabellum 
(on which the generic name is obviously founded) is specially mentioned ; and 
a description is given of Membranij)ora roborata, Hincks (1881, A. M. N.H. 
(5) viii. p. 128), which is referred to the genus. One of these two species 
might be selected as the genotype, but it seems unnecessary to do so, since the 
species mentioned on pp. 672, 673 of Waters' paper, in addition to those 
referred to by him, as given in one of his earlier papers (1897, J. L. 8. xxvi. 
p. 2), can all be placed in other genera which antedate Flabellaris. 
FlabelUna, Levinsen, 1902, Vid. Medd. naturh. Foren. Copenhagen, p. 21.— Au 
emendation of Flabellaris, Waters, perhaps suggested because of the 
resemblance of this name to Flahellaria, Gray, 1848. The only species 
mentioned is FlabelUna roborata (Hincks), 1881 (see Flabellaris) ; but the name 
is pre-ocoupied by FlabelUna, Voigt, 1834, Das Thierreich, iii. p. 124, used for 
a Nudibranchiate Mollusc. 
Flustra, Linnseus, 1761, Fauna Svecica, p. 539. — The history of this name has been 
given by Lang (1917, Geol. Mag., Dec. vi, vol. iv. p. 170), who shows that 
Linnaeus deliberately altered his own genus Eschara (1758, p. 804) to Flustra, 
and bha.t Flustra foUacea,IArm. (EscJiara foUacea, 1758, p. 804) is the genotype 
of both genera. Although this course is' not admissible under the Eules, I 
fully agree with Dr. Lang that it is in the highest degree desirable to suppress 
Eschara and to use Flustra in its accepted sense. It may be noted that 
Lamarck (1801, Syst. An.s. Vert. p. 383) accepted Flustra, with the genotype 
Flustra foliacea, L. 
Gemellaria, Van Beneden, ] 845, Nouv. Mem. Acad. Eoy. Brux. xviii. p. 9. — Based on 
Savigny's name " Gemellaires," appearing at the foot of pi. xiii (referring to 
figs. 4^-4'') of the "Description de I'Egypte." Savigny's species was 
described by Audouin (1826, p. 243) us Loricaria ajgijptiaca, without reference 
to the fact that Loricaria was used for a Fish by Linnajus (1758, p. 307), as 
pointed out by Fleming (1828, p. 541). Lamouroux (1827, p. 434) mentions 
Gemellaria, without any associated trivial name, but only to state that it is 
referable to Loricaria. Gregory (1893, Trans. Zool. Soc. xiii. p. 227) discusses 
the generic name, but de Blainville (1830, p. 425; see also 1834, p. 461), 
whom he quotes as the first author to mention the genus in a correct form, 
merely places Gemellaria loriculata in his synonymy of Gemicellaria loriculata, 
ascribing the combination wrongly to Savigny. The first use of the generic 
name which is completely in order appears to be that of Van Beneden, 
1845, who describes Gemellaria loriculata (Cellularia loriculata, Pallas, 1766, 
p. 64 = Seriularia loricata, L., 1758, p. 815); and in this sense the genus has 
been used by the majority of recent writers. Gemellaria thus becomes a 
synonym of Eucratea (q. v.). It is in any case desirable that it should drop 
- out of use, since it is based on Savigny's '■ Gemellaires," and the species 
figured by this author is not congeneric with S. loricata, L. (See Synnotum.) 
Gemicellaria, de Blainville, 1830, p. 425 ; see also 1834, p. 460. — Genosyntypes, 
Gemicellaria loriculata (see Gemellaria), among the synonyms of which 
