MUSEUM OF COMPAKATIVE ZOOLOGY. 305 



in 1808, and Montfort in 1810 (under the masculine form). The last very 

 justly observes (Vol. II. p. 287), that Cyclostoma elegans (which seemed to have 

 become generally accepted as the type of the genus) is always without the re- 

 flected lip called for by the diagnosis; still he preserves the name and separates 

 under the name of Cyclophorus the forms with the broadly reflected border to 

 the aperture. 



Scientific news did not travel rapidly in those days, and we find the careful 

 Schumacher, evidently puzzled by Lamarck's different values for Cyclostoma, 

 trying to reconcile them by retaining Cyclostoma for the Turbo clathrus sort, 

 and Scalaria for Turbo scalaris, etc. This distinction, more apparent than 

 real, had previously been recognized by Leach, who in 1815 proposed the 

 name Aciona for the umbilicated kinds like T. scalaris, and retained the name 

 Scalaria for the clathrus group. Both sections have since received quite a 

 number of names. 



It is evident that on the face of the record, and from the action of various 

 naturalists at the time, the name Cyclostoma, if retained at all, should be 

 used for Scalaria Lam., as commonly understood. Pfeiffer, in rejecting it al- 

 together from the nomenclature of Pulmonata, has, it seems to . us, taken the 

 proper course, so far as that group is concerned. We can fairly claim that the 

 record should decide these matters, and that possible mental reservations and 

 traditions must be excluded from consideration. But the old naturalists 

 were very loose in their treatment of nomenclature, as may be inferred from 

 the remarks of Cuvier as late as 1817 (Mem. sur la Vivipare, p. 3): " Dra- 

 parnaud in accordance with the indication of Lamarck ranges it {Vivipara) 

 among the Cyclostomas. . . . Nothing doubtless prevents us from taking the 

 vivipara for the type of the genus cyclostoma, but it is probable that then we 

 should be obliged to exclude several species which have so far remained there, 

 and notably all the terrestrials." The fact that Vivipara does not agree with 

 the original diagnosis and type of Cyclostoma, does not seem to have occurred 

 to him. Deshayes, in his edition of Lamarck's " Histoire des Animaux sans 

 Vertebres " (1836), tries to justify the process by which Cyclostoma has come 

 to represent something quite different from its original type ; but I do not con- 

 sider that his remarks give a fair statement of the history of the case as it ap- 

 pears in the printed record, though they may correctly convey traditions with 

 which those who desire impartially to apply the rules of nomenclature cannot 

 legitimately concern themselves. 



The question then remains what name to adopt, and it is evident that Sca- 

 laria is out of the question. Klein can by no stretch of courtesy in which the 



two or three copies are known, most of the edition, according to Herrmannsen, hav- 

 ing been destroyed by fire. The genera proposed in it are often well conceived 

 and properly characterized, with references to the place of description, etc. of the 

 species included under them. If the work is to be considered as published, there is 

 no doubt that the new genera proposed in it, other things being equal, must be 

 admitted to nomenclature. 



VOL. xviii. 20 



