134 M. O. A. L. Morch on Conchological Nomenclature. 



and numerous attempts at a better classification (chiefly mono- 

 graphic) have been made by writers of different countries, which, 

 however, have been neglected by the great majority of concho- 

 logists, who prefer following in the path of an antiquated cele- 

 brity to availing themselves of modern research and independent 

 investigation. Gray, Agassiz, and Herrmannsen were the first who 

 directed attention to the subject generally ; and to Swainson and 

 Gray we are indebted for the earliest attempts at forming more 

 reasonable divisions of the genera. 



The ' Genera' of Messrs. Adams must be regarded as a great 

 advance in the same direction by all who have specially devoted 

 themselves to the study of Mollusca, although their work may 

 not prove the most useful to be consulted by pupils and students 

 of Conchology. By the united critical labours of different con- 

 chologists it will perhaps be possible, at no very distant period, 

 to produce a work that shall be more complete. Before, how- 

 ever, a standard nomenclature can be obtained, the fundamental 

 principles of nomenclature must be settled. The errors of Lin- 

 naeus we must believe would have been corrected by the immortal 

 founder of the existing school of naturalists himself, had he been 

 acquainted with the present development and state of Biology. 

 It appears strange in the present day to find it deliberately 

 maintained, as in the review in question, that genera have no 

 foundation in nature, but are purely artificial, and only " useful 

 in a few great collections/' or " convenient in special or elabo- 

 rate monographs/' and that "for ordinary purposes a much 

 smaller number of divisions is sufficient." It seems not less 

 strange to find the reviewer expressing wonder at the number of 

 genera contained in the work, which must be regarded as small 

 in comparison with those in entomology or ornithology, or even 

 possibly with what may be found to exist when the Mollusca 

 now known are more closely examined. Such considerations as 

 the number of genera, and the ability to retain their names in 

 the memory, are foreign to real science, and can only find a 

 place in treatises of a popular character. 



Some names, it is objected, " are taken from works published 

 before the time of Linnaeus." The claim to be the first to esta- 

 blish genera was never made by Linnaeus, neither did he request 

 his successors to ignore the works of his predecessors, which 

 would have been contrary to the practice he himself pursued. 

 " Nomina generica, quamdiu synonyma digna in promptu sunt, 

 nova non effingenda*." " Nomen genericum antiquum antiquo 

 generi convenitf." 



Let us inquire what is meant by ante-Linnaean ? The Com- 



* Phil. Botan. 24/. p. 190, and Fund. Botan. 1736. 

 t Linn. Fund. Botan. 



