118 THE NAUTILUS. 



which occurs at Nice ; and Bourguignat, who examined Risso's col- 

 lection, has recorded this identification. 



(4) The last of the four cases is only a nominal disagreement, the 

 two names referring to one and the same species. I used that of 

 cinerea Drap. because grave doubt has been cast upon the identity of 

 Born's quinquedentata with the form so named by many later authors, 

 while " Pupa cinerea " is a common name for the form in collections. 



This disposes of all the cases in question, and so far as I can see, 

 the name Jaminia will be retained for Risso's second species J. mar- 

 ginata Risso = Pupa umbilicata Drap. It will be noted that Dall, 

 in his first article, also selects Risso's second species as type, but as 

 he was misled by a wrong identification of marginata Risso, he did 

 not use the name for the same group. Jaminia is a genus of the 

 " European system " with no species in America. It has a great 

 superficial resemblance to Pupilla, but with some extraordinary 

 characters certainly entitling it to generic rank. 



I am not concerned to show whether or not Pfeiffer correctly 

 identified Draparnaud's figures, but I fully share Dr. Dall's confi- 

 dence in his general accuracy. While there is no doubt that Risso, 

 like everybody else at that time, identified his shells largely by Drap- 

 arnaud's volume, yet his names do not rest for identification solely 

 upon the references to Draparnaud any more than Binney's species 

 rest upon the references he cites. Primarily, they rest upon the de- 

 scriptions given by Risso himself. To identify Risso's species by the 

 references to Draparnaud's figures presumes absolute accuracy of 

 identification on Risso's part. Therefore, in discrediting the identifi- 

 cations as given by Dr. Dall, I am not questioning Pfeiffer's relia- 

 bility in the least. I am simply recording a few of the mistaken 

 identifications of Risso, who, it is acknowledged by all who have used 

 his work, was careless to a degree. 



Dr. Dall, in using Risso's list, considers it necessary to point out 

 what his species really are in terms of Pfeiflferian nomenclature. 

 But it seems to me that the very foundation of the subsequent struc- 

 ture is involved in getting at the actual identity of the species in 

 question. Otherwise conclusions based upon the list are without 

 permanence. The names can either be taken as they stand in Risso, 

 or they can be really corrected. No half-way correction of the list 

 of species goes to the root of the matter. There probably cannot be 

 found a zoologist of experience in the world who will support the 



