NO. 7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 II 



toward the latter interpretation unless this be contraindicated by data 

 not contained in the statement of the case. 



The statement of the case does not show that the designation of 

 Physa fontinaVis by Von Martens, 1898, as type of Bulimis is admis- 

 sible, as Von Martens' premises are not submitted. Unless Von 

 Martens recognized pcrla as objective synonym of fontiitalis, this type 

 designation is debatable. 



(g) In nomenclatorial discussion of Biiliniiis, the point appears 

 not to have been duly considered that Bruguiere, 1792a [1789], 

 pp. 286-367, proposed as a new molluscan genus " Bulime. — Bulimus; 

 Nob.," with 113 species, and that as he uses Bnlinius and bulime, in 

 numerous places, the c|uestion of a typographical error appears to be 

 excluded. On page 367, he cites " Bulin, (voyez) a I'article, Bulime des 

 fontaines," namely (p. 306) " Bnliinus font'malis; Nob.," where he 

 quotes " Bulla fontinaVis Linn.." '' Planorhis bulla Mueller," " Die 

 Wasser-blase ; die Perlen-blase . . . ., La bulle aquatique " in sy- 

 nonymy ; he also says (p. 307) " L'espece que M. Adansson a observee 

 dans Jes eaux marecageuses du Senegal, & qu'il a nummee le bulin, 



est dififerente du Bulime des fontaines [p. 308] Je crois done 



que ce sont trois especes [cf. Lkilin of Adansun ; ' liulime de la 

 Virginia ' of Lister and Petiver] bien distinctes qu'il faut encore 

 examiner avec soin & comparer, les unes avec les autres, avant de les 

 distinguer par des phrases caracteristiques : celle de M. Adansson ne 

 me paroit bien douteuse, mais jc ne pense pas de meme de celle 

 de Lister, . . . ." 



Accordingly. " le bulin " of Adanson is sab judicc from the stand- 

 point of Bruguiere in establishing his genus BuVunns, and he seems 

 definitely to exclude it from Bnlinius fontinalis, but he does not 

 appear to classify it definitely as a distinct species of Bnlinius; how- 

 ever, he states (p. 307) that it "a tant d'analogic avec le Bulime 

 des fontaines." 



Thus, under Art. 3or, Adanson's species appears to be eliminated 

 from consideration as type of Bulimus Brug., 1792. 



Bruguiere definitely states (p. 294) " le noni de Bulime que j'ai 

 adopte pour ce genre, avoit deja ete employe par M. Scopoli pour le 

 Bulime oblong; je I'ai conserve, parcequ'il indique son analogic avec 

 celui de la bullc, a cause de I'ouverture entiere, sans echancrure, qui 

 est commune a tons les deux." This comes very close to being a 

 designation of oblongus (cf. haemastomus Scopoli) as type species. 



Accordingly, if the view advanced by Kennard and Woodward 

 (1924, 126) be adopted (that "Bulimus [Scopoli, 1777] was an 

 obvious mistranscription for Bulinns [1757 ; 1781] ; it must be treated 



