2 University of Michigan 



of justice. It is possible that future students may find suffi- 

 cient grounds for the reinstatement of both of these names. 

 The questions involved in both cases are purely zoological. 

 They do not involve any construction of the International Code 

 and are wholly matters of individual opinion as to the proper 

 construction of Rafinesque's published writings and the elim- 

 ination of opinions based on references to his unpublished 

 ""Conchologia Ohioensis,"' which are, of course, absolutely in- 

 admissible. But most writers on the subject have been as un- 

 successful in their attempts in the latter particular as Mr. Dick 

 was in keeping King Charles the First out of the Memorial. 

 I'he futility of discussion on questions of this kind is 

 so obvious that their settlement must, in the end, be left 

 to those who have not participated in the promulgation of the 

 opinions at issue. For this reason, I, personally, bow to the 

 great weight of Dr. Pilsbry's judgment, and leave to others 

 the discussion of the merits of the questions involved and the 

 possible reversal of his decision. 



But as to Pleurocera the situation is quite different. Not 

 only does the position taken by Dr. Pilsbry involve the stand- 

 ing of two generic names which for over fifty years have had 

 universal recognition, but it is based, as it seems to me, upon 

 a radically incorrect construction of the Code and of several 

 of the decisions of the International Committee, and for that 

 reason should not pass unchallenged. 



Stathmhnt of Facts. ■ 



I. Pleurocera was first described by Rafinesque in 1818 

 (Am. Monthly Magazine, etc., Ill, p. 355) as follows: 



G. Pleurocera. Univalve. Shell variable oboval or 

 conical, mouth diagonal crooked, rhomboidal, obtuse and 

 nearly reflexed at the base, acute above the connection, lip 



