22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP [Jan., 



son has pointed out,® precedes Lotorium in the Conchyliologie Sys- 

 tematique. Its resemblance to Aquila is no bar to acceptance because 

 the Latin word aquillus or aquilusj signifying dark or water-colored, 

 is different from aquila. an eagle. In this connection it may be noted 

 that Montfort used "Avatery" names for his other genera of Tritons.^ 

 The genera of AquiUuJcc may therefore stand thus: 



I. — Aquillus Montf., Conch. Syst., II. 578. Type cutaceus L. 



(Includes the sections Lampusia Schum, 1817, type pilearis L.; 

 Lotoriimi Monti., 1810, type L. Iotor = femoralis L.; Mono- 

 plex Peny, 1811. type cynocephalus Lam.) 

 Subgenus Septa Perry, 1811. Type S. ruhicunda Perry (=aus- 



tralis Lam.). 

 (Includes Triton Montf. and Tritonium Cuv.) 

 II. — Distortrix Link, 1807. {Distorsio auct.) 

 III. — Priene H. and A. Ad. 



IV. — Cohihraria, Schimi.. 1817. Type maculosa Gmel. {Epidromus 

 Klein of authors). 

 Subg. Cmnia. Bivona, 1838. type lanccolata ]\Ike. 

 V. — Apollon Montf., 1810 { + Gyrina Schum., 1817). 

 VI. — Gyrineum Link, 1807. 



(Including Biplex Perry, Buffo Montf., Bufonaria and Lampas 

 Schum., etc., some of which are available for subgeneric 

 and sectional divisions.) 



Some authors recognize mo]-e than one genus among the forms 

 referred above to AquiUvs, but when a wide range of species is exam- 

 ined, the subgenera seem to merge pretty thoroughly together. Indeed 

 Septa is n.ot very distinct, except in the typical species. This subject 

 has been ably discussed l^y Kesteven, with whose conclusions I fully 

 agree. It seems to me that he has shown conclusively the untenability 

 of Ranularia, Lampusia, Lotorium, etc., as generic divisions. Colu- 

 braria stands apart from all the other genera, and the examination of 

 its dentition is a desideratum. It may possibly be Rhachiglossate. 

 The subgenus Cumia includes small [Mediterranean and Antillean 

 species. A series of Antillean and Pacific species referred to this 



« Nautilus, XVII, p. 24 (June, 1903). 



' Both spellings are given in dictionaries consulted. The etymology suggested 

 by Herrmannsen is obscure and more than doubtful. 



* Harris (t. c, p. 186) rejects Aquillus because (1) its etymology is uncertain, and 

 (2) if emended sufficiently it can be made identical with Aquila Brisson. It seems 

 scarcely necessary to reply that uncertain etymology is not usually considered 

 ground for rejection of a name, and no authorization of such a course can be found 

 in the British Association or any later code. And to the second objection it 

 may be urged that l)y a similar process of emendation about half the names in 

 use might be changed. Harris is wide of the mark in citing Mure.T lotorium as 

 the type of Lotorium Montf. It is rather hard to see how such a mistake could 

 be made. Montfort's engraving is a characteristic representation of the common 

 Murex fern oralis L. 



