382 Scientific Intelligence. 
t part of my note reads as follows: “ Though highly 
valuing the great care with which Mr. Lyman’s ‘Catalogue’ is 
worked up, and fully acknowledging its great scientific import- 
nce, I cann me the unreasonab er in which he 
upholds the (fictitious) rights of priority of authors before Linné 
Thus Astrophyton muricatum (Lmk. ostosum, 
is ed A. 
because it is thus named by Seba (!); Ophiothrix Jragilis (Abgd.) 
gives way to O. rosula (Linck); Ophioderma lacertosa (Lmk.) to 
Ophiura levis (“ Stella levis /) (Rondelet); Ophiura texturata 
(Lmk.) to Ophioglypha lacertosa (Linck),—it is quite another 
set : th Mr. N ; 
name to A. muricatum (Lmk.) is the more useless, because the 
Euryale costosa of Lamarck is, as pointed out by Mr. Lyman him 
self, a West Indian species, different from A. muricatum and from 
g ” 
prehension of my proposition) “I may say, that Linnzeus first con 
trived what is called binomial nomenclature, in which each animal 
has two names—the generic and the specific. Consistency is the 
first duty of a naturalist, therefore it was the first duty of the fol- 
. e 8 i T 
tainly apply that name to the West Indian species to bp It 
belongs. Did not Seba, more than a century ago, publish a fine 
ames 
given after the introduction of the binominal system of nomencla 
t. . 
us consult, e. g., “The Revised Rules of Zodlogical Nome 
clature, adopted by the British Association in 1865 (wit 
by A. E. Verrill, 1869), p. 6:* 
* This Journal, II, vol. xlviii. 
