might have copied C. W. Johnson's names from his valuable catalogue 

 published by the Boston Society of Natural History, six years ago, 

 but these will soon be antiquated. That one may fully realize the 

 ridiculous absurdity of the situation let me take for example Fusus 

 islandicus. This animal is a good illustration of the unstable character 

 of nomenclature. It is not a Fusiis but has been known as one for over 

 a century. Had I published these notes in 1859 a reference to the latest 

 and highest authority at that time would have compelled me to use 

 the generic name Tritonium; if published in 1870 it would have 

 appeared as Sypho, while its diminutive companion, looked upon by 

 some as a variety only of islandicus, would have been regarded as 

 belonging to a different sub-family with the generic name Chrysodomus; 

 had I waited until 1874, when I might have published most of my 

 notes, it would have been regarded as Neptunea. In 1889 it would 

 have been called Chrysodomus, and now the latest systematic catalogue, 

 (Johnson) pubHshed only six years ago, recognizes it a Colus, and 

 even its specific name changed too. Now the authorities for the 

 above mentioned changes are among the leading ones on the subject 

 in America: Stimpson, Dall, Verrill and Johnson. Is it fair to 

 call me antiquated when I wish simply to indicate the shell of which 

 the soft parts are drawn? A distinguished authority of Jurassic 

 ammonites, Quenstedt, I believe, actually suggested using numbers to 

 indicate the successive species found in the various deposits of the 

 Jura. If we were to use numbers for species and islandicus were 224, 

 for example, that number would hold no matter whether it were 

 Buccinoid, Fusoid, or some other family. So in using the name Fusus 

 islandicus it is a name found associated with all the above names as a 

 synonym, and the leading name used by Forbes and Hanley, 

 Jeffreys, Gould and other authorities. 



The taxonomist should become familiar with Louis Agassiz's 

 "Essay on Classification," first published as an introductory chapter 

 in his great work "Contribution to the Natural History of the United 

 States," afterwards published separately by Longman. It was most 

 unfortunate that his definition of the catagories of classification could 



27 



