6 THE NAUTILUS. 
libraries and an extensive collection of shells, and their whole aim in 
life seems to be making new genera. In some one of the older groups 
a few species are found, haying a certain peculiar pattern of sculp- 
ture or coloring, or some little singularity in the fold of the col- 
umella or hinge teeth, and presto, a genus is formed and the science 
is burdened with another name! 
These genus-makers never stop to see whether thisslight peculiarity 
does not imperceptibly shade out into other species which are not 
as marked; this is no business of theirs; the main point seems to be 
the attaining of a sort of cheap reputation for scientific knowledge. 
According to Tryon’s Structural and Systematic Conchology, there 
were, at the time of its publication in round numbers, about 6,000 of 
these so-called genera, besides a great many synonyms, a number 
which has been largely increased since that date. Even the old 
genus Helix, without Nanina and Zonites, has some 200 of these 
names, many of which have never been, characterized. No doubt 
our increasing knowledge and the good of the science has demanded 
that some of these older genera should be divided. In days gone by 
the name Pyrulaembraced a large proportion of the marine univalve 
shells, having a short spire and lengthened canal, while Fusus in- 
cluded about all with a similar canal and elevated spire. So Bue- 
cinum was a miscellaneous group, characterized principally by a 
notch at the base of the aperture. As now generally recognized, 
Pyrula includes only pear-shaped shells of thin papyraceous structure, 
Fusus a sort of spindle-shaped species, and Buccinum a small, well- 
defined, perfectly natural group. 
I am aware that those who favor this dismemberment of the older 
genera claim that many of' these groups are too large for studying 
advantageously, and that the variation from the type of a genus is 
very gradual through long series of species, to forms which are so 
different from the type that no description will cover the whole, and 
the very ambiguous description of Helix is quoted as an example of 
this. Mr. Binney, in the Manual of American Land Shells, says: 
“Tn common with all who have studied the Pfeifferian genus Helzx, 
I have long been convinced of the necessity of recognizing among its 
species numerous distinct genera. * * * Before recognizing these 
groups as distinct genera, I desire to wait until we can ascertain 
whether generic characters can be found in the jaws and lingual 
dentition, as well as in the shells. Convinced that characters cannot 
be found in these organs, or in the genitalia, I adopted, in that work, 
