344 Kev. Canon Norman on Ebalia nux. 
I really had been under the impression, and I fancy that 
your readers will be of the same opinion, that I had dealt 
very tenderly with Mr. Pocock. I merely gave a plain 
statement of facts, corrective of Mr. Pocock’s omissions, 
without further comment. Mr. Pocock complains that I had 
Cl taken occasion to charge him by implication with lack of 
courtesy for not giving what I consider due acknowledgment 
to the name I applied to the above Crustacean.” It happens 
that I took particular pains not to allege that lack of courtesy 
which his conscience now plainly tells him there was. Had 
he used a little care he could not have fallen into it. Natu- 
ralists living in the country, with nothing but their own or 
neighbouring small libraries to depend upon, may well in these 
days be excused if they are deficient in a knowledge of the 
literature of a subject on which they write ; but the case is 
different with an Assistant at the British Museum, who has a 
magnificent library at his elbow. The literature of deep-sea 
dredging is not extensive, and surely ought to have been 
carefully consulted before writing. Either Mr. Pocock was 
not aware or was aware that Prof. Milne-Edwards had admi- 
rably figured Ebalia nux in illustrations which ought to have 
been the first work consulted on Crustacea when examining 
deep-sea forms of the Eastern North Atlantic. If he did not 
consult that work, he ought to have done so. If he did 
consult it, as he seems to imply in his last remarks that he 
had done, he had no excuse for writing u Ebalia nux , n. sp.,” 
instead of either u Ebalia nux , Norman, MS.,” or u Ebalia nux } 
A. Milne-Edwards.” Again, Mr. Pocock states that he was 
indebted to Prof. Carus’s i Prodromus 7 for the knowledge 
that u Ebalia nux , Norman, 77 was u species nondum de- 
scripta ; 77 yet he possessed the same means of making the 
discovery which Prof. Carus had. 
But what specimens did Mr. Pocock describe as Ebalia nux , 
n. sp. (i. e. Pocock)? The c Flying Fox 7 specimen was 
apparently too imperfect for description, which was therefore 
drawn up from a series I had sent to the British Museum 
when my friend Mr. Miers wished to examine this species in 
connexion with certain 4 Challenger 7 forms. Whether this 
was a courteous act let others judge. 
The same carelessness in consultation of papers is evi- 
denced in Mr. Pocock’s notes on Anamathia Carjjenteri and 
Lisyognathus Thomsoni , of which he writes : — u I am not 
aware that they have ere this gained the right to be included 
in a list of the fauna of the British area.” Yet these species 
