﻿58 
  MARINE 
  MOLLTTSCA 
  nESCRIP.KD 
  BY 
  P. 
  P. 
  CARPENTER 
  

  

  tion 
  in 
  regard 
  to 
  "long": 
  "Tlic 
  measures 
  of 
  length 
  [long.] 
  are 
  taken 
  from 
  the 
  

   anterior 
  to 
  the 
  posterior 
  margins." 
  Unless 
  one 
  notes 
  the 
  difference 
  of 
  definition 
  

   in 
  these 
  two 
  specifications 
  it 
  is 
  confusing 
  when 
  trying 
  to 
  reconcile 
  the 
  two 
  systems 
  

   of 
  measurements 
  used 
  by 
  Carpenter. 
  

  

  There 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  difference 
  of 
  opinion 
  concerning 
  the 
  procedure 
  to 
  be 
  

   used 
  when 
  renaming 
  a 
  preoccupied 
  scientific 
  name 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  new 
  name. 
  

   Dall, 
  and 
  he 
  has 
  been 
  followed 
  by 
  some 
  modern 
  workers, 
  when 
  applying 
  a 
  new 
  

   name 
  under 
  the 
  above 
  circumstances 
  frequently 
  chose 
  a 
  new 
  type 
  for 
  the 
  species. 
  

   If 
  the 
  new 
  name 
  is 
  definitely 
  supplied 
  for 
  an 
  old 
  one, 
  as 
  such, 
  it 
  would 
  seem 
  more 
  

   logical 
  and 
  less 
  confusing 
  to 
  the 
  interpretation 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  if 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  

   original 
  name 
  is 
  retained. 
  In 
  this 
  view 
  the 
  writer 
  agrees 
  with 
  Strong 
  (1928b, 
  p. 
  

   197, 
  footnote) 
  that 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  Eucosmia 
  variegata 
  Carpenter 
  when 
  renamed 
  by 
  

   Dall 
  remained 
  the 
  type 
  established 
  by 
  Carpenter 
  and 
  not 
  a 
  new 
  one 
  designated 
  by 
  

   Dall. 
  Strong, 
  however, 
  reversed 
  his 
  method 
  when 
  substituting 
  with 
  Hertlein 
  

   (Strong 
  and 
  Hertlein, 
  1945, 
  p. 
  105) 
  a 
  new 
  name 
  for 
  the 
  preoccupied 
  Lucina 
  un- 
  

   data 
  Carpenter 
  (not 
  of 
  Lamarck, 
  1819). 
  Those 
  authors 
  chose 
  a 
  new 
  shell 
  from 
  

   modern 
  collections 
  as 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  new 
  name. 
  In 
  this 
  case 
  there 
  might 
  be 
  an 
  

   exception 
  because 
  the 
  original 
  locality 
  was 
  not 
  definite. 
  However, 
  the 
  writer 
  be- 
  

   lieves 
  that 
  the 
  first 
  endeavor 
  would 
  be 
  to 
  try 
  to 
  locate 
  the 
  original 
  specimen 
  in 
  the 
  

   Cuming 
  Collection 
  upon 
  which 
  the 
  diagnosis 
  of 
  Carpenter's 
  species 
  was 
  said 
  to 
  

   have 
  been 
  written 
  (Carpenter, 
  1865d, 
  p. 
  279; 
  1872, 
  p. 
  272), 
  In 
  this 
  matter 
  of 
  re- 
  

   taining 
  the 
  original 
  type 
  for 
  the 
  new 
  name, 
  tlie 
  writer 
  concurs 
  with 
  Dr. 
  Fritz 
  

   Haas 
  (Personal 
  communication, 
  March 
  2, 
  1945). 
  

  

  If 
  new 
  types 
  are 
  selected 
  (see 
  case 
  of 
  Tellina 
  biittoni 
  Dall) 
  possibly 
  the 
  subse- 
  

   quent 
  autlior 
  might 
  not 
  have 
  the 
  same 
  species. 
  In 
  that 
  case 
  the 
  new 
  name 
  would 
  

   represent 
  a 
  new 
  species, 
  and 
  the 
  preoccupied 
  name 
  would 
  still 
  be 
  unnamed. 
  If 
  

   the 
  type 
  of 
  the 
  preoccupied 
  name 
  is 
  still 
  in 
  existence, 
  it 
  would 
  seem 
  better 
  to 
  re- 
  

   tain 
  the 
  original 
  type. 
  If 
  the 
  original 
  type 
  were 
  lost 
  the 
  same 
  procedure 
  would 
  be 
  

   followed 
  as 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  choosing 
  any 
  neotype 
  — 
  i.e., 
  designating 
  a 
  topotypic 
  shell 
  

   if 
  possible 
  (see 
  also 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  Tellina 
  hiittoni 
  Dall). 
  Therefore, 
  in 
  this 
  paper, 
  

   where 
  the 
  original 
  type 
  of 
  a 
  renamed 
  species 
  is 
  in 
  existence 
  the 
  original 
  is 
  retained 
  

   as 
  the 
  type 
  and 
  any 
  later 
  type 
  designation 
  disregarded. 
  

  

  The 
  designation 
  and 
  use 
  of 
  neotypes 
  have 
  been 
  customary 
  in 
  molluscan 
  

   studies. 
  During 
  the 
  course 
  of 
  study 
  of 
  this 
  monograph 
  the 
  term 
  was 
  provisionally 
  

   used 
  in 
  a 
  few 
  cases. 
  Neotypes 
  should 
  be 
  designated 
  in 
  those 
  cases 
  where 
  it 
  is 
  

   known 
  now 
  that 
  the 
  original 
  types 
  have 
  been 
  lost. 
  However, 
  because 
  of 
  the 
  con- 
  

   ditions 
  provided 
  in 
  the 
  Rules 
  of 
  Zoological 
  Nomenclature, 
  1953, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  feasible 
  

   to 
  propose 
  neotypes 
  in 
  this 
  paper 
  which 
  is 
  ready 
  for 
  the 
  press. 
  According 
  to 
  the 
  

   decisions 
  (Copenhagen, 
  1953, 
  p. 
  30, 
  31) 
  the 
  designation 
  of 
  a 
  neotype 
  must 
  be 
  

   published 
  in 
  the 
  Bulletin 
  of 
  Zoological 
  Nomenclature, 
  and 
  its 
  status 
  is 
  not 
  legal- 
  

   ized 
  until 
  it 
  remains 
  unchallenged 
  for 
  a 
  period 
  of 
  "5" 
  years. 
  Consequently, 
  neo- 
  

   types 
  should 
  be 
  designated 
  and 
  publicized 
  during 
  the 
  preparation 
  of 
  a 
  paper 
  and 
  

   not 
  in 
  a 
  finished 
  report. 
  Suggestions 
  have 
  been 
  made 
  herein 
  as 
  to 
  specimens 
  

   which 
  would 
  qualify 
  as 
  neotypes. 
  

  

  The 
  following 
  institutions 
  have 
  boon 
  contacted, 
  and 
  examinations 
  of 
  the 
  speci- 
  

  

  