THE NAUTILUS. 79 



ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF DRUPA. 



BY CHARLES HEDLEY. 



A necessary but mournful process in scientific advancement is the 

 elimination of familiar names. It has been shown by Dr. Dall 

 (Journ. of Conch., XI, 1906, p. 294) that Ricinula of Lamarck, 

 1812, and Ricinella of Schumacher, 1817, must yield to Drupa 

 Bolten, 1798, of which the type is D. morum Bolten. 



Continuing the process of revision from genus to species, similar 

 changes occur, for with the fall of Ricinula go the Lamarckian specific 

 names associated with it. The presentation of the genus most ac- 

 cessible to students is that of Tryon's Manual of Conchology, II, 

 1880, pp. 182-185. In the genus as there framed the specific names 

 require amendment. Meeting at the first step Ricinula hystrix 

 Linn., it is to be remarked that Hanley (Ips. Linn. Conch., 1855, 

 p. 294) has shown that Murex hystrix Linn., is an immature M. 

 ricinus L., to the synonymy of which it must be accordingly trans- 

 ferred. Other synonyms of M. ricinus are D. tribulus Bolten, recog- 

 nized by von Martens (Rumphius, Gedenboek, 1902, p. 116) and 

 R. arachnoides Lamk., noted by Tryon. 



The place which Tryon gave to R. hystrix should apparently be 

 taken by Drupa rubuscaesius Bolten, of which clathrata Lamarck, 

 1822, and speciosa Dunker, 1867, seem to be synonyms. But R. 

 reeveana Crosse, should be parted from its heading and subordinated 

 as an absolute synonym to D. rubusidaeus Bolten, an independent 

 species. Again, R. laurentiana Petit should be cut away from the 

 species to which Tryon binds it and associated with R. digitata. 



R. horrida Lamarck, was preceded both by R. violacea Schu- 

 macher, 1817, and D. morum Bolten, 1798. As the same figure in 

 the Conchylien Cabinet was cited by all three authors, the coinci- 

 dence of names is exact. Similarly another of Martini's figures 

 (979) is given as foundation by Bolten in 1798 for his D. grossidaria, 

 by Schumacher in 1817 for his R. dactyloides, and by Lamarck in 

 1822 for his .ff. digitata. So that the claim for Bolten's name is 

 here also clear. Deshayes has pointed out (An. s. vert., X, p. 50, 

 footnote) that Blainville unfortunately redescribed the yellow form 

 of this species as '' lobata," while to the nameless brown form he 

 gave the preoccupied name of " digitata." On the ground of ex- 

 pediency, Deshayes thereupon reversed Blainville's names. Though 



