2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 121 



ically inclined with a special leaning toward botany and conchology, 

 he was well acquainted with the collection. It is not surprising he 

 went to considerable trouble to give names and figure references to so 

 many of the mollusks and other invertebrates that he listed. It is 

 interesting to note also that, although the sale of the collection was 

 supposed to begin on April 24 of that year, the auction did not take 

 place until a month later — a delay due probably to the time required 

 to compile and print the catalogue. 



Although the "Portland Catalogue" has been used as a reference 

 source of scientific names almost since its publication — witness its 

 citation by Dillwyn in 1817, Swainson in 1822, and Gray in 1824-2S 

 (Kay, 1965, p. 13) and the use of Solander's names by such a conserva- 

 tive worker as G. W. Tryon in his "Manual of Conchology" — its 

 modern use in malacological nomenclature dates from the appearance 

 of papers by Iredale (1916) and Dall (1921). In spite of some oric- 

 inal opposition to the resurrection of these names, the "Portland 

 Catalogue," as Kay has stated (1965, p. 10), is now generally con- 

 sidered a valid source of scientific names. 



That the Reverend John Lightfoot was the anonj^mous compiler 

 of the "Catalogue" — and thus the author of the new names proposed 

 therein — has recently been stated clearly by Dance (1962). The re- 

 searches of Kay (1965) have confirmed a long-held view of the present 

 writer that the authority to be cited for all new names in the "Cata- 

 logue" is the compiler and not Solander. Lightfoot used the names 

 found in Solander's manuscript and possibly also on labels in the 

 collection, which may explain the absence in the manuscripts of some 

 names credited to Solander in the "Catalogue." 



The names derived from Solander's manuscripts and labels were 

 designated by Lightfoot in most instances by adding the letter "S" to 

 the scientific name. It must be emphasized, however, that only the 

 names were taken from the manuscripts and rarely did the compiler 

 use a bibliographic reference to a published figure that was given by 

 Solander. In my view, Solander cannot in any way be considered 



responsible for the principle condition that made the names available 



i.e., pubhcation (see Article 50 of the "International Code of Zoolog- 

 ical Nomenclature," 2nd edition, 1964)— although he can be consid- 

 ered to have been the source for some of the names in the "Catalogue." 

 Since he was not the compiler (and therefore not the author of the 

 "Catalogue," either solely or in part), he did not vahdly introduce any 

 of the names in the "Catalogue" into the literature. 



Although many names first proposed in the "Portland Catalogue" 

 are now in general use— some have been accepted for over a hundred 

 years — others have been ignored or passed by until fairly recently. 

 In a work that has been accepted as a valid source of scientific names 



