NO. 7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 15 



In the fiibt place, as admitted in the " Discussion," Adanson was a pre- 

 Linnean writer and therefore by the " Rules " his work and names cannot be 

 entertained. The amazing statement on the top of fol. 4 [p. 8] of your draft, 

 that his Bulinus " has been determined " and that " it was defined very well, 

 and with specimens from the type locality no zoologist should go astray in its 

 identification " is far removed from fact. No man from Adanson's day to this 

 has seen the mollusc, and no specimens from the type locality, which is unknown, 

 exist ! It remains an indeterminate species and the bestowal of a trivial name on 

 it does not alter that. A few details given of it show that both anatomically and 

 conchologically it had nothing in common with forms, like Isidora, that have 

 been placed with it by writers who should have known better. It was by follow- 

 ing Fischer that the medicos were misled into using a wrong name, which docs 

 not apply to their molluscs and it is not for the systematic zoologists to pander 

 to the errors of the misinformed. 



In the next place there is no such thing as " Bulimiis Scopoli, 1777" or that 

 eccentric writer would not have attached Adanson's name as author. It should 

 be quoted as " Bulimus Adans., of Scopoli." The error of transcription {not 

 a typographical error) is only too obvious (see Kennard and Woodward, 1924, 

 p. 126). Of course if Scopoli had looked twice or read the text as he manifestly 

 did not do, he would have seen his error and rectified it. The argument that 

 Scopoli did not cite Adanson's species is beside the mark for he evidently, as the 

 context shows, thought he was doing so but misspelt the name. The suggested 

 definite statement in the opening summary of the draft " Opinion " that " The 

 Commission rules that Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, is not an obvious typographic 

 error " is hardly consonant with the admissions and more guarded statements on 

 fol. 5, sect, e [p. 9]. If you must suggest the verdict, why not put "do not 

 consider," instead of "rules"? Scopoli's record of 1777 cannot be considered 

 apart from his 1786 elaboration and extension of the name to the " nee non 

 paucae terrestres cl. Miillerii," which puts the crown on his absurd group (see 

 Kennard & Woodward, 1924, p. 128). The restoration of "Bulimus Adans." of 

 Scopoli, 1777, would only make confusion worse confounded. 



Mueller's adoption of Adanson's Bulinus, including his bestowal of a trivial 

 name, which, of course, becomes the type of the genus, fails for the reasons 

 carefully pointed out by Kennard and Woodward (1920, p. 87). 



As to Bulimus of Bruguiere, 1792, whatever may be said or thought of tlie 

 " Bulimus Adans." of Scopoli, there is the name printed in 1777 and renewed in 

 1786; hence by the "Rules" it cannot be used again so that the argument ad- 

 vanced at the bottom of fol. 6 [p. 11] that the suppression of Bulimus, 1777, 

 would resuscitate that of 1792 appears to me quite fallacious. Bruguiere's 

 Bulimus, therefore, goes out as a homonym as admitted in the initial " Sum- 

 mary " of the draft " Opinion " but not made as clear as it might be in the 

 " Discussion." 



Stiles to Woodward : 



Referring to your letter on Bulimus, I had already examined your publica- 

 tions of 1920 and 1924, but will order them again to see whether I have over- 

 looked any point. I shall also take pleasure in forwarding a copy of your letter 

 to the Commission when a draft of the Opinion is forwarded. 



You, of course, understand that the statement of case in any Opinion is the 

 statement given by the appellant and that the discussion is the part written by 

 the Commissioner who formulates the Opinion. It is customary to refer each 

 2 



