Remarks on the genus Melampus. 295 
ricuda as clearly belongs to those shells which were its original typical 
species, as that of Melampus does to the shells here associated under it, 
and must stand or fall with them. Yet it may be said, take away these 
two species, and this genus Melampus is identical with 4uricula, Fé- 
tuss.* Be it so; but on the other hand, be it remembered, that Auri- 
cula Myosotis (at best only a doubtful species) will then be the only spe- 
cies left which was included in the genus 4uricula by its founder, La- 
marck ; and even this, a species perhaps scarcely contemplated by him 
at all in its original formation, as he clearly meant 4ur. Mide and Jude 
to be its typical species ; while Melampus, i. e. Conovulus, Lam., has a 
much more extensive claim over the remaining species. Besides, it is 
the claim of Auricula of Lamarck, he it recollected, not that of Juri- 
cula of Férussac, which is the subject of discussion. The former should 
clearly go along with the shells contemplated by Lamarck; the latter 
must, at present, yield precedence to the prior claim of Melampus of 
Montfort. I say at present; for if (though J think it improbable from 
the presence of an epidermis on the shells, and other circumstances) the 
animals of Aur. Mide and Jude should be found hereafter perfectly iden- 
tical with those of this genus, [shall then be quite willing to allow the 
prior claim of Auricula to the name here adopted. 
It may be farther objected, that there is still a want of evidence to 
prove the coincidence of the generic group above defined with De Mont- 
fort’s Melampus, since its characters are drawn up from two species 
never contemplated by him. Yet, if all reliance on the similarity of 
shells as affording grounds for generic association, be not altogether given 
up, there can be no doubt that his Melampus coniformis belongs to the 
same genus as Mel. exiguus of this paper, and therefore as Mel. equalis. 
It is an additional argument for their generic affinity, that De Montfort 
Says positively, (and in the face too of Bruguiére, who, according to 
Férussac, believed it fluviatile) «Ce Mollusque est marin, il vit sur les 
** cétes de Cayenne, et principalement contre le rocher du Connétable 
** qui est en avant de la rade.’’ Conchyl. Syst. Il., p. 320. 
To return from this digression; any thing indeed but a brief one. 
* M. le Baron de Férussac himself originally distinguished “ les Conovules 
“de M. de Lamarck” (our Meiampodes) from “les vraies Auricules.” See 
Tabl. Syst. des Limagons, p. 14. 
u2 
