APPENDIX 



In my paper on "Living Lamellibranchs of New England" I pro- 

 tested strongly against the multiplication of generic names and quoted 

 eminent authorities to show that my attitude was justified. Among 

 these authorities quoted were Dr. Charles Sedgwick Minot, Fran- 

 cis N. Balch, Esq., Professor Herbert Osborn, Professor 

 Edward L. Rice, Dr. A. A. Gould, Dr. Woodward and Professor 

 Keith of England, and a Professor of Zoology, at Harvard, all vig- 

 orously protesting against the evil and the uselessness of multiplying 

 names. Professor Rice, president of the Ohio Academy of Science, 

 says: "Within recent years the estimate of the number of known 

 species of animals has reached 522,400 and with this enormous com- 

 plex each tyro has been at liberty to trifie: it is Hke turning a child 

 loose in the card catalogue of the library across the street. No won- 

 der that a friend should exclaim in cynical disgust that he has given 

 up the scientific nomenclature in favor of popular names on*the ground 

 that the latter are more definite and less confused." This complaint, 

 as every zoologist knows, is not a new one. Woodward, in his in- 

 comparable "Manual of Mollusca," published seventy years ago, in a 

 footnote on synonyms, says: "In Pfeiffer's Monograph of Helicldse, 

 a family containing seventeen genera, no less than three hundred 

 and thirty generic synonyms are noted; to this list Dr. Albers, of 

 Berlin, has lately added another hundred of his own invention!" I 

 regret to say that I added ten more in my "Pulmonifera of Maine", in 

 1864, though half of these were promptly relegated to the synonomy 

 column, the other half were finally recognized, namely: Pallifera, 

 Strobila, Helicodiscus, Striatura and Punctum. These genera were 

 based on structural peculiarities, the lingual membrane, the mandible 

 and shell even to its microscopic markings. Binney threw doubt on my 



23 



