lo University of Michigan 



V. 



In conclusion, I desire to insist most strenuously : 



1. That the original diagnosis of Pleurocera is an air; 

 quate and unmist^ikable description of a group that has ha 1 

 universal generic recognition for over fifty years. 



2. That the figure copied by Binney from the "Conchologia 

 Ohioensis," and now admissible in evidence, confirms very 

 exactly the present existing conception of the genus. 



3. That verriicosa I'af. does not fall within the origin.al 

 generic diagnosis nor agree with Rafmesque's figure, but, on 

 the contrary, by the unanimous concensus of opinion of all 

 conchologists for over half a century, belongs to an entirely 

 different genus. 



4. That the establishment of verrucosa as the genotype 

 of Pleurocera would result in transferring the generic name to 

 a group that does not comply v, ith the original generic spec- 

 ifications. 



5-. That such a result, in plain violation of the clear intent 

 of the original author, would be most unfortunate and should 

 not be done, if in any way it can be avoided. 



6. That Pleurocera acuta Raf. is clearly identifiable. 



7. That under a proper construction of the Code as inter- 

 preted by Opinion Xo. 46, it becomes necessarily the genotype. 



8. If not, that it has nov, become the tvpe by designation, 

 as being the first species complying with the original generic 

 diagnosis that has been so designated. 



