EEOJU! THE ATJSTEALIAN TEETXAEIES. 



425 



In 1877 I found the internal fasciole of the test, and completed the 

 description of the morphology. But as the species could no longer 

 remain as a Hemipatagus, I placed it within the genus Lovenia, 

 and the species became Lovenia Forbesi, Woods and Duncan (Quart. 

 Journ. Geol. Soc. 1877, vol. xxxiii. p. 58). 



In the Prodr. Pal. Victoria, dec. vi. p. 39 (1879), Prof. M'Coy 

 considers that " I, also, will probably prefer to leave it now under 

 the old authority,''' meaning that the species should stand as Lovenia 

 Forhesi, M'Coy, sp. It is, of course, not of much importance 

 whose name is to stand after the species, provided the palaeontologist 

 who is studying the Australian fauna can be directed to the first 

 and most correct specific definition. That given by M'Coy, in 1879, 

 leaves nothing to be desired, nor is that given previously by me 

 otherwise than correct. 



If MS. names on a tablet in a museum are to be of greater value 

 than careful descriptions and delineations, then the best plan will 

 be for the recognizers of new forms simply to name them and 

 to leave the description to the chapter of accidents. As a personal 

 matter, I would leave the name to be placed after the specific 

 name as Professor M'Coy wishes ; but it is not in the interest of 

 science to do so, and the personal names placed after a species 

 must be those of the first writers who first defined the species 

 so that it could be recognized by subsequent observers. 



M. Pomel (' Theses par A. Pomel, Class, me'thod. Ech. viv. et 

 foss.' Alger, 1883, p. 28) has diagnosed a genus Sarsella, which 

 differs from Lovenia, Desor, in not having the ampullae visible on the 

 inner surface of the test beneath the sunken scrobicules of the 

 primary tubercles. Lovenia Forbesi is included by M. Pomel in his 

 genus. Now the occurrence of these projections, rounded in shape 

 and with a depression in them, are in relation with the bases of 

 the smaller actinal tubercles as well as with the more important 

 large primaries (A. Agassiz, ' Revision,' pi. xxxviii. figs. 28 & 28') : 

 they arise from the thin condition of the test, and the hollows are 

 the involuted bases of the tubercles, whilst the swellings are the 

 inward projection of the scrobicules. The thicker the test the less 

 visible are these characters. They are visible in the recent forms ; 

 but unless a fossil Lovenia be so preserved that the matrix within 

 clears out readily, there is no opportunity of noticing whether this 

 particular structure prevails in the stout tests. In the only instance 

 I have had of a form with an unusually delicate test, and which 

 was fractured, I saw slight relics of the roundings within. As all 

 other characters of physiological value are the same in the recent 

 and fossil Lovenice, and as the character relied upon by M. Pomel is 

 not of primary physiological value, I do not consider that he has 

 shown the necessity for the introduction of a new genus. Again, 

 I am by no -means satisfied that Sarsella mauritanica, Pomel, 

 described and figured in Cotteau's ' Ech. Eoss. de l'Algerie, Etage 

 Eocene/ 1885, p. 36, pi. i. figs. 4-8, is a Lovenia without ampullae. 

 There is most certainly no internal fasciole present, nor is a sub- 

 anal one visible. Cotteau (p. 38) states that M. Pomel has not 



