14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



United States), and to Dr. B. B. Woodward of London, England, 

 and to Commissioner Frederick Chapman of Melbourne, Australia, 

 with request for comments. 



The consultants have replied as follows : 



Letter from Dr. Paul Bartsch of the United States National 

 Museum : 



Dr. Dall and I have both gone over j^our " pink sheets," which are herewith 

 returned, and we both feel you have splendidly covered the field and there is 

 nothing else to say. 



Letters from Dr. H. A-. Pilsbry of the Academy of Natural Sciences. 

 Philadelphia : 



I have read your opinion on Buliinns and Btiluiiis with great satisfaction. 

 It appears to me to cover the ground in a wholly logical manner. I am of course 

 the more pleased because the views you adopt disturb our current nomenclature 

 far less than any other course which has been proposed. 



Since Btilimis has entered medical literature (as a host of Schistosoma in 

 Africa, etc.) it is doubly desirable to retain the name as wholly unconnected 

 with the prior Bulinuis, which has been used only in totally different senses. In 

 my report on Congo mollusks (now, I hear, about to be printed) the type, 

 Bulinus senegalensis, is to be figured from the original marsh in Senegal. 

 Kennard and Woodward's failure to identify this species was doubtless due to 

 lack of material from that particular place. 



Thank you for letting me see the very full discussion of the case BuUinus 

 versus Bulinus. As you say, the discussion by Bruguiere is very important in 

 this connection, though I had not recognized its bearing before. I think that the 

 Opinion will prove generally acceptable to workers in Mollusca, and it seems 

 to me by far the most logical solution of the questions at issue. 



Letter from Dr. B. B. Woodward, malacologist : 



The high compliment you pay of asking my opinion of your " Opinion " ere it 

 goes before the Commissioners although you know how divergent our views are 

 on the enforcement of the " Rules " is fully appreciated by me. 



I take it that you invite remarks on the whole draft and not merely on the 

 conclusions expressed in the initial " Summary." It appears to me then that 

 your draft recommendation has been drawn up after the manner of judicial deci- 

 sions solely on the somewhat involved statement laid before you by the appellant 

 without regard to whether that statement is complete or not. Had you seen 

 your way to make yourself really familiar with the complete arguments pub- 

 lished by Kennard and Woodward in the Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 14, 1920, 

 pp. 86-88, and vol. 16, 1924, pp. 125-128, instead of relying on the fragmentary 

 quotations of the appellant, you would have found all the points fully met, and 

 would, I venture to think, in many respects have modified your recommendation 

 and summary, which, if I may say so, rather suggests to the Commissioners how 

 they should vote instead of giving them the information on which to base their 

 own conclusions as they should be left to do. It is a pity the rival statements 

 could not be given in parallel columns. 



