30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



He states that: 



Les Agathines forment un genre entierement compose de mollusques terrestres, 

 et c'est parmi eux que ron rencontre les plus grands de ces mollusques ; celui 

 que nous decrivons tient dans cette classe la second rang .... 



Thus it is clear that Achat inus was not a monotypical genus for 

 Montfort, 1810. 



On page 420 Montfort adds : 



Cest a de Lamarck que Ton doit I'etablissement du genre agathine ; il donna 

 pour type I'agathine variee, btilla achatina, de Linne, dans son Systeme des 

 animaux sans vertebres. 



It is obvious that Achatiniis, 1810, is an emendation of and there- 

 fore an absokite synonym of Achaihia, 1799. 



This case was submitted to Commissioner Bather for independent 

 opinion which he formulated as follows : 



Achatinus being merely an emendation must have the same genotype as 

 Achatina which, fortunately, was monotypic. Montfort had no power to desig- 

 nate any other type. 



Therefore, Achatinus cannot be used for Bulimus sehra Brug. if 

 it belongs, as now alleged, to a different genus from Bulla achatina 

 Linn. 



Therefore, on the evidence submitted, the name for a genus with 

 B. zebra as genotype must be CocJiUtoma Ferussac. 



The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its 

 Opinion the following: 



Summary. — Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore ob- 

 jective synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebra as type 

 of Achatinus contravenes Article 30a and c. Achatinus, 1810, invali- 

 dates any later use of Achatinus in a different sense. 



Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. 



Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners : Apstein, Bather, 

 Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, 

 Stone. 



Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 



Not voting, eight (8) Commissioners : Bolivar, Hartert, Ishikawa, 

 Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Warren. 



