of the Genus AnciUaria, 287 • 



marckian Eburn'je, but is now proved to be intimately united with 

 AnrAllaria, the next question is, what are we to do with the other 

 Lamarckian Ebunice? Should we not leave them undisturbed in 

 the genus Eburna ? Undoubtedly. For it is a rule universally 

 acted upon in zoological nomenclature, that when a species or 

 genus is dissevered from another, the original generic name is con- 

 tinued to those species that are left ; while those that are taken 

 away, are either placed under other genera, or form a new one of 

 themselves. It would be idle to adduce proofs in support of this 

 argument; the difficulty would be, to find a case where this rule 

 has not been acted upon. 



The fit application of the name o{ Eburna, to those shells which 

 will now remain in the genus, is a matter of very secondary im- 

 portance ; nomenclature is no branch of natural history, and the 

 science has already been deeply injured by the fancied consequence 

 which has been attached to it. The specific names oibalteata and 

 nivea may with equal reason be objected to; because all th6 

 Ancillarice are belted, and there is more than one species purely 

 white. 



To the species which I have now described, must be added the fol- 

 lowing, which have been found in a fossil state in France, and are de- 

 scribed by Lamarck, viz. — A. glandi/'ormis, oUvula, and canalifera ; 

 neither of these I have hitherto seen. The total number of spe- 

 cies contained in the Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres 

 amounts to four recent, and five fossil. The recent species are 

 now augmented to fourteen, and the fossil reduced to four, making 

 altogether an accession of nine species. 



Synopsis. 



