56 THE NAUTILUS. 



and Bartsch's notice. The title of the paper is " D'nne Methode de 

 Classification pour les coquilles de la famille des Chemnitzidae," and 

 on p. 200 is given a tabular statement of tlie family where appear 

 the names Oceanida, Salassia, Ondina, Elodia, Odetta and Nu'emia. 

 No species are mentioned. 



In the Ann. Soc. Agri. et Hist. Nat., Lyons, Vol. VII, 1884 

 (1885), pp. 209 et seq., De Folin included another paper entitled 

 " Constitution Methodique rationnelle et naturelle de la Famille des 

 Chemnitzida3." The tabular statement above mentioned is there 

 reproduced without alteration. A reprint of this paper appears to 

 have been consulted by Dall and Bartsch as they quote it under its 

 title and give pagination agreeing with that conclusion. 



I have only had access to the first volume of " Les Fonds de la 

 Mer," which appears to be a scarce work. 



In that volume on p. 214 two species are diagnosed as Ondina sul- 

 cata De Folin and Jaminea bilirata De Folin. The part including 

 these names was issued in 1869. On p. 264 Oceanida graduata De 

 Folin is introduced. This part appeared in 1870. At the end of 

 this volume on p. 314 a list of new species actually to hand is noted. 

 There is mentioned Odetta spp, Noemia spp, Lia spp, Elodia 

 elegans and Salassia carinata. These were probably published in 

 the succeeding volumes. I conclude p. 314 came out in 1871. 



With their references to these names Dall and Bartsch have been 

 peculiarly unfortunate, in almost every instance errors having crept in. 

 First (p. 13) they accept as a valid subgenus " Elodiamea De 

 Folin 1884 (26)." Referring to (26) p. 18 we read " Elodiamea 

 De Folin, Zool. Record, Vol. 22, 1885, p. 94 == Elodia De Folin, 

 Les Meleagrinicoles, 1867, p. 66; type, Elodia elegans De Folin, not 

 Elodia Desvoidy, 1863; 4- Herviera Melvill and Standen, Journ. 

 Conch., Vol. 9, 1897, p. 185; type, Pyrgulina glirietta Melvill and 

 Standen. The Zool. Record for 1885 would not be published until 

 1886, so that 1884 is obviously incorrect. Elodia is not introduced 

 at the place quoted: a species Eulima elodia there appears; if that be 

 the same as Elodia elegans, then Dall and Bartsch have produced a 

 second complication as they have re-named elegans on account of its 

 preoccupation in Odostomia. 



The Jour. Conch., Vol. 9, p. 185, appeared in 1899 not 1897, and 

 if Herviera be a synonym of Elodiamea, then the latter is identical 

 with Odostomella Bucquoy Dautz. and Dollf. Hedley (P. L. S. N. 



