36S PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEilY OF [Aug., 



group commonly called Cerithium in nomenclature was Mart^Ti. who 

 named it Clava. ha\ing two species in his first publication, of which 

 the first was a '• Vertagus" and the second a Pyrazus. 



The next author was Bruguiere. who habilitated Cerithium Adanson, 

 without mentioning a t^-pe and with limits, as ]M. Cossmann expresses 

 it. which" ne repond a rien de bien precis." Lamarck's first effort to 

 select a type fell on a species of Pseudovertagus. 



In this" he was followed by Link (1807^. Montfort (ISIO) and Cuvier 

 (1817). Lamarck's second effort reverted to the antique t}'pe repre- 

 sented by C nodulosum. 



In this he was followed by Schumacher (1817). who included the 

 aliico group under Cerithium (Lam.) proper, and separated the Clava 

 group with phcate axis under the untenable name of Vertagus. Most 

 modern authors have, in a general way, followed Schmnacher. 



Bruguiere, Lamarck and Deshayes were famihar with Martj-n's 

 work, referred to it with high praise, and cited his names in s}Tiom-my; 

 the loose practice of changing specific names to suit the fancy of the 

 author, without reference to prioritj", being still in vogue. 



M. Cossmann's criticisms have been made ^"ith such an air of con- 

 fidence and so much particularity of detaU, that the incautious reader 

 might well suppose they were founded upon an accurate determination 

 of the facts. Yet in the present case it has been shown that of three 

 dates essential to a right decision, those of Mart\Ti. Bruguiere and 

 Gmelin, as printed by ^I. Cossmann,-" each and ever}* one is ^sTong. 

 Only because they are incorrect is he able to arrive at a decision differ- 

 ent from mine, first published in 1892-^ and elaborated by PUsbry in 

 1901.- Since an analysis of my previous paper on Mart\-n appeared 

 in M. Cossmann's Revue de Paleozoologie. shortly after its pubhcation, 

 it seems difficult to account for the presence of the false date 1789 for 

 Martyn's first volume in the last number of the Essais. and one would 

 expect, after Sherbom and Woodward's elucidation of the dates of 

 the several parts,-^ that a French author of M. Cossmann's standing 

 would have informed himself of the dates of pubhcation of the Ency- 

 dopedie Methodique when they bore directly upon the subject he was 

 discussing. 



Whatever %iew may be taken of Mart^Ti's work, nothing can prevent 



^* T ertagus and Pseudovertagus beins: at that time not differentiated. 

 -"Essais de PaUoconch. Comp., \T:irpp. 65. 84. 1907. 

 " Trans. Wagner Inst.. III. part II. p. 290, 1892. 

 ^Proc. Acad. Xat. Sci. Phila. for 1901. p. 392. 

 ** Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1S93, pp. •582-.58-i. 



