Among the many cryptic annotations, we find that By this great plague of the confusion of tongues, appeareth God's horrible judgements against man's pride and vaine glory. Whether systematists are more prideful and vainglorious than others, we would hesitate to say, but nowhere has this judgment been felt more severely than in the realm of taxonomic nomenclature. This is a field plagued by a veritable Babel of tongues. We have recently been confronted by a nomenclatural problem for the solution of which there appears to be no modus operandi. The phylum Echinodermata includes five extant classes universally known as Echinoidea (sea urchins), Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers), Crinoidea (feather stars and sea lilies), Asteroidea (sea stars or starfish) and Ophiuroidea (brittle or serpent stars). In The Zoological Record (Edwards, 1982), the latter two have been combined in the class Stelleroidea (starlike echinoderms) and that is how they appear in possibly the best modern general textbook (Barnes, 1980). Wise men have urged that the suffix -oidea should designate a superfamily (Recommendation 29A, International Code, 1985). What, then, are these time-honored classes to be called? Our personal interest lies in the class now inappropriately named Echinoidea. The distinguished Editor of Zoomorphology, Otto Kraus, who drew the problem to our attention, proposed that the class be named Echinoida, as it was by Siewing (1985). But this creates a new problem: all of the orders of sea urchins are designated by the suffix -oida and, if that were not enough, the name Echinoida itself is already in use for that order which includes Echinus and Echinometra, as well as several other regular urchins. Within all other classes of living echinoderms, the ordinal suffix is -ida, as in Paxillosida, Ophiurida, Dendrochirotida, etc. Perhaps the solution would be to change the classes to the suffix -oida and then change all of the orders of urchins to -ida, thus bringing some uniformity to the phylum. However, we think that this has some serious disadvantages because we would lose the linguistic convenience of referring to the clypeasteroids, for example, including but not limited to the family Clypeasteridae. Terms such as spatangoids, cassiduloids and so on are far too useful to be given up without a struggle. And besides, we refuse to live in a world without the disasteroids! It is beyond contemplation. In search of inspiration we consulted Barnes (1980) to see what is done with other groups of animals. The awful extent of the Babylonian judgment immediately became apparent. The class Hydrozoa has two orders suffixed -ina (one of which includes two suborders with the same ending), one -ida, one -phora and one -oida. The Turbellaria seem to fare slightly better with four -ida's, two -coela's, two -ata's and one -phora; but note, in this class, -oida is occasionally used for suborders. The two orders of digonont rotifers are curious: one enjoys an -idea suffix; the other -oidea. On the other hand, the monogonont orders include two -acea's and an -ima. Hope