NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 19 



OPINION 86 



CONULINUS VON MaRTENS, 1895 



Summary. — The generic name Conulinus von Martens, 1895, takes as type 

 Buliminus (Conulinus) conidus Rv., and is not necessarily invalidated by 

 Conulina Bronn. 



Statement of case. — Major M. Connolly has presented the fol- 

 lowing case : 



Conulinus von Martens (iloUiisca) was lirst proposed as a subgenus of 

 Buliminus without description of its points or definition of genotype in Nachr. 

 d. Deutsch. Malak. Ges., 1895, p. 180, in a descriptive list of new species: 



" No. 16. Buliminus {Conulinus n.) Ugandac." The author then describes 

 the species and adds at the end of the description the words " verwandt mit 

 B. conulus Rv." He then describes two other new species, Buliminus (Conuli- 

 nus) hildcbrandti and B. (C.) mrtiila. 



No genotype is nominated, and the whole point is whether it is possible lor 

 B. conulus Rv. to be admitted as the type, as it is not placed by the author in 

 his new subgenus in his original list, although he mentions that one of his 

 new species, belonging to that subgenus is " verwandt " with conulus. 



In his work on "' Beschalte Weichthiere deutsch Ost-.^frica," 1897, on p. 64, 

 von Martens defines and extends the subgenus Conulinus and nominates L 

 conulus Pfr. (a misprint for Rv.) as type, thus showing that he probably had 

 that species in his mind as type when he originally propounded the subgenus, 

 although he omitted to say so. 



In 1914, Gude (Fauna of British India, Mollusca, vol. II, p. 280) rejects 

 Conulinus von ]Mts. as void, owing to the prior existence of Conulina Bronn, 

 1835, and proposes in its place Edouardia [not Edwardsia quatr., 1842], with 

 B. conulus " Pfr." (another misprint for Rv.) as type. 

 The questions therefore which require to be settled are : 

 (i) Is the name Conulinus acceptable at all, or should it be replaced by 

 Edouardia? 



(2) If it is acceptable, is B. conulus Rv. acceptable as its type? 

 The matter is now of very considerable importance, as recent anatomical 

 investigation has proved that practically all the large South African species, 

 which have usually been placed in Pachnodus. do not belong to that genus at all, 

 but are similar to conulus in their anatomy, and even further, are so dififerent 

 in that respect from the nearest subfamilies in which they can be placed that 

 it may be necessary to place them in a separate one, in which case it is important 

 that the name of their genus should be absolutely unas.sailable. If conulus is 

 acceptable as the type of Conulinus. the latter name is available for the genus ; 

 but if the type of Conulinus must be selected from the three [new] species in 

 von Martens' original list, it will not be safe to apply it to the South African 

 forms, including conulus, until the anatomy of whatever is selected as the type 

 species is known; there is no proof, as yet. that it is the same as that of conulus. 

 A ruling is also very desirable as to whether Edouardia Gude should replace 

 Conulinus or be relegated to its synonymy. 



