PILSBRYS NAMES 



Most of Pilsbry's type designations for genera were either by original designa- 

 tion or by monotypy. In creating new names for homonyms of species he 

 generally gave type designations for specimens in the Academy collections, com- 

 pletely overlooking tlie fact that these were a change of names only and that the 

 substituted names automatically took the original type specimens of the homo- 

 nyms. 



Pilsbry made many casual notes on side issues while doing certain of his specific 

 studies. These accrued over the years. When extra copy was needed to round 

 out the necessary pages for issues of the "Nautilus," these notes were used for 

 copy. Thus duplication of his own work, as well as the work of others, reached 

 the printed page. A note of this sort was published in the "Nautilus" 58: 64, 

 1944: 



"Many years ago I was describing shells collected in Hawaii by my friends 

 and myself in a series of papers pubhshed by the A.N.S.P. Manuscript descrip- 

 tions and figures prepared for another number of that series have been lying 

 dormant in my desk drawer about 25 years. Some of them now serve to stop 

 a gap in Plate 2." 



In 1955, Dr. Myra Keen wrote to Dr. Pilsbry regarding some problems of 

 nomenclature in the Trochidae as covered in the Manual of Conchology. In 

 reply, he wrote as follows: 



"It is over sixty years since I wrote that Manual of Conchology review of the 

 group. This was so long before they bought a high chair for you that you can 

 hardly appreciate the fact that in 1890 there was no "oflBcial" or even customary 

 method of selecting generitypes. Allen of the American Museum and some bird 

 men used the method "by elimination." Also, Dall occasionally. Those were 

 dark but carefree days. We httle knew of the brambles and pitfalls concealed 

 in the thickets of nomenclature we have to fight our way through nowadays." 

 Any person publishing, as a descriptive zoologist, over a period of 75 years 

 has lived through many "schools of thought." Starting as he did in 1882, his 

 early writings were published before the rules of nomenclature had really crys- 

 talHzed and many of his names were the product of his time. His concept of 

 taxa below the specific level is sometimes difficult to understand. The terms 

 "subspecies," "variety," "form," and "mutation" are all used without clarification. 

 Using our present understanding of the species complex, many of these names 

 will fall by the way. Many were based upon single specimen variations in a 

 unit population, or upon isolated specimens which didn't quite agree with the 

 meager descriptive data of other authors. 



We have treated all the trinomials the same, regardless of how they were 

 originated, i.e. as subspecies, varieties, forms, etc. Each of these trinomials must 

 be judged anew on the basis of our present understanding of the geographical 

 significance of the subspecies. As stated elsewhere, many of these trinomials 

 were created for variations within a species and many times upon trivial dif- 

 ferences. 



In a few cases, Pilsbry overlooked earlier introductions of subfamily or 

 family names which he had created. In many instances their introduction was 

 indicated only by their scientific endings with no additional information as to 

 why such names were needed. Later, and sometimes much later, morphological 

 data were given to clarify their use. 



