NO. 7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 13 



e. — Under the premises submitted, not one of the species (putris, 

 fragilis, stagnalis, tentacnlata) cited under Bulimus, 1777, is available 

 as type for Bulimis, 1781, and not one of the species {pcrla, turritus, 

 gclatinus, scncgalcnsis) cited under Bulinus in 1781 is available as 

 type for Biilitnus, 1777. Accordingly, it appears (under Art. 30^) 

 that an objective identity of these two generic names is excluded. 



In connection with the foregoing recommendations the Secretary 

 states very frankly that there are phases of this case of nomenclature 

 which are open to debate. In the recommendations that have been 

 made and where he had the option of adopting either of two interpre- 

 tations he has been influenced by the principle of endeavoring not 

 to overturn existing nomenclature any more than is absolutely neces- 

 sary. The generic name Le Bulin, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, as typified 

 by B. senegalensis, belongs to the Order PULMONATA, subo. 

 BASOMMATOPHORA. 



Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, if Helix icntaculata be accepted as type, 

 would belong to the Order PROSOBRANCHIATA. 



Bulimus of Scopoli, 1786, if typified by B. haemastomus (syn. of 

 ohlonga Mueller), would belong to Order PULMONATA, subo. 

 STYLOMMATOPHORA. 



This species belongs to a modern family distinct from any family 

 represented in the 1777 list of four species. It was the group repre- 

 sented by Scopoli's 1786 usage which Bruguiere had mainly in mind, 

 and which came into general use as Bulimus and continued under 

 that name until about thirty years ago. From Scopoli's standpoint, 

 his Bulimi of 1777 and 1786 were congeneric — he was merely forming 

 a new genus for the elongated species of Linnean Helix — leaving the 

 Linnean term for the depressed and discoidal forms. Ball's sug- 

 gestion to restrict Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, to Helix tcntaculata was to 

 avoid displacing either of the old and universally used names Succinea 

 or Lymnaea; the H. tcntaculata group (Bithynia) being later and 

 comprising relatively few species. 



To interpret Bulimus as a misprint or as an error of transcription, 

 as might easily be done, would call for the use of Bulinus in its place, 

 thus bringing about a very regrettable instance of transfer of name 

 in a genus which is reported to contain more than 1,200 species. 

 When two theoretical interpretations are possible either of which 

 seems justified, a practical point of this kind is surely to be given 

 due consideration. 



The case has caused such distinct differences of opinion among 

 conchologists, that the Secretary submitted the foregoing data to 

 Dr. Paul Bartsch, Dr. W. H. Dall, and Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (all of the 



