364 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Aug., 



tion rules, which required a diagnosis to \-alidate a new genus or subgenus. 

 But these views not being acceptable to the majority of zoologists, and 

 the International Congresses having formulated a series of working rules 

 in which this principle was not enforced, and believing that a stable 

 nomenclature can only result from the general, impartial, rigidly exact 

 enforcement of the rules adopted, I have proceeded in my work on 

 that basis. 



That it has resulted in necessary changes was the fault of the illogical 

 and inaccurate methods of the early part of the nineteenth century, 

 wdiich ;M. Cossmann and those who sympathize with him seem to desire 

 to perpetuate. 



One cannot argue on such a question unless from a common stand- 

 point, which being wanting, I have left unanswered munerous criticisms 

 of my work by M. Cossmann, recognizing his right to his own standpoint 

 and the futility of argument under the circumstances. 



But if one admits perfect freedom in selection of principles, one does 

 not necessarily waive the right to have the facts in the case accurately 

 stated by the critics. In this direction M. Cossmann's writings leave 

 much to be desired. Lest I should be supposed to acquiesce in them, 

 I have thought it best to select a concrete case, that of M. Cossmann's 

 treatment of the history of Martyn's genus Clava, afterwards named ' 

 Cerithiiim by Bruguiere, which M. Cossmann has had occasion to notice 

 in his account of the Cerithiacea in the publication alluded to. 



In order to clear up the subject it is necessary to enter into the history 

 of the genus Ccrithium. This name was first applied by Fabio Colonna 

 in his treatise De aquatilibus^ to a shell afterwards named Ccrithium 

 adansonii by Bruguiere. The name was adopted by Adanson for a 

 group containing Cerites and Turritellas,^ one of which, Le Cerite (p. 

 155), he identified with Colonna's shell. These authors were prelin- 

 nean and, except historically, not entitled to be cited in synonymy. 



In 1792 Bruguiere adopted the name and for the first time introduced 

 it into binomial nomenclature,^ naming no type, but dividing the genus 

 into three unnamed groups, the first of which corresponds to Vertagus 

 Klein, the first species being C. obeliscus Bruguiere. 



In 1799 Lamarck published his Prodrome, ''' in which he cited as type 

 Murex aluco Linne. Two years later, however, in his Systhne,^ he 



' De aquatilibus aliisque nonullis animalibus, Roma, 1616, pp. 53 57 

 ^ Senegal, pp. 152-160, 1757. 



=• Enajcl. Math., I, pt. 2, 1792, p. 467. Not issued in 1789, as stated by Coss- 

 mann and various other authors. 

 * Prodr. noiiv. class., p. 73, 1799. 

 ^ Syst. des an. s. vert., p. 85, 1801. 



