424 



PROF. P. 31. DTTISrCAX OX ECHIXOIDEA 



compressus ? M'Coy considers that these questions may be answered 

 possibly in the affirmative ; but, after a careful examination of the 

 specimen, I could find no fascioles. 



24. Lovexia Eoebesi, Woods & Duncan. 



A passage in M' Coy's ' Prodromus ' places palaeontologists in a 

 considerable difficult}- regarding the correct authorship of this 

 species. Is it to have the names placed after it as above, or ought 

 the name of Prof. M'Coy to stand in their place? It does not 

 matter much to whom the naming of the species should be 

 accredited, now that the whole of the morphology of the test has 

 been published. But, divesting this subject of all personal feeling 

 (and I am glad to say none has ever been felt by Prof. M'Coy and 

 myself), the question turns upon the old settlement of former 

 disputes. Are MS. names of species to take priority ? It has been 

 decided over and over again that MS. names do not take priority of 

 those which have been accompanied by comprehensible and pub- 

 lished specific definitions. This interesting form has quite a 

 literature of its own, as may be noticed by reading Mr. R. Etheridge, 

 jun.'s, elaborate communication to the Society (Quart. Journ. Geol. 

 Soc. vol. xxxi. p. 445), and by referring to the essay of which this is 

 a revision. Since those pages were written, Prof. M'Coy has given 

 a still more elaborate history of the species. 



The first discoverer of the Echinoid was Sturt, the traveller, who 

 named a common Urchin, in 1832, Spatangus Hoffmanni, Goldf. 

 The identification was erroneous. 



In 1852 Eorbes gave some lectures at the Museum of Practical 

 Geology, London, on Gold, &c, and they were published. The 

 Echinoid was mentioned b}^ him as a Spatangus, without a 

 specific name, and an imperfect figure was given of it. In 1859 

 M'Coy named the specimens in the Melbourne Museum, and wrote 

 Spatangus Forbesi on the tablets. He did not write or publish any 

 description of the species. In 1862 Mr. Tenison Woods published 

 a drawing of the Echinoid in his ' Geological Observations in South 

 Australia,' and called it Spatangus Forbesi. In 1864 1 could not find 

 any description of the species, and showed that it was a Hemipatagus, 

 from the nature of the specimens sent to me by Mr. T. Woods. I 

 described this species, naming it Hemipatagus Forbesi, Woods & 

 Duncan, and had the type drawn (' Annals and Magazine of 

 Natural History,' ser. 3. vol. xiv. p. 165, pi. 6). In 1869, 

 Laube named the species H. Forbesi, and placed Mr. T. Woods's 

 name after it. He had not seen my communication, I presume. 

 In 1875 Mr. R. Etheridge, jun., advanced the knowledge of the 

 morphology of the test by discovering a subanal fascicle (Quart. 

 Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxi. p. 445) in a form which he considered 

 specifically distinct from H. Forbesi, Woods & Duncan, but which 

 must now be considered to be a variety. He recognized the pro- 

 priety of associating the names of Mr. T. Yfoods (who gave me 

 such assistance in describing the species that I was bound to con- 

 nect him with my work) and myself with Hemipatagus Forbesi. 



