1.'32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETV. 



of colour, the varietal names {alha, rufa, etc.) certainly have not 

 the same standing as specific names, and in the formation of new 

 species may conveniently be ij>nored. A true subspecies is, however, 

 on a very different footing. Its name is of equal value with a specific 

 name, and should be retained when the subspecies is raised to 

 specific rank. 



Mr. Sowerby was of opinion that the varietal name should he 

 retained. But it was suggested by Mr. Da Costa that if this rule 

 were consistently enforced great confusion would almost inevitably 

 arise, owing to the fact that varietal names are usually founded on 

 trivial characters, and would in all probability already be in use in 

 the genus as specific names. 



Mr, Melvill and Mr. Smith wei'e of opinion that the new specific 

 name should stand, the latter considering that the credit of founding 

 a species should rest with the man who first correctly recognised it. 

 On the other hand, Mr. Fulton and Mr. BuUen Newton held that the 

 varietal name should be retained. Mr. Newton, however, would 

 allow considerable discretion in the application of the rule in individual 

 cases. 



Letters dealing with this question from corresponding and ordinary 

 members and others were then read : — 



Professor Boettger, M. Cossmann, W. H. Dall, Ph. Dautzenherg, 

 G. K, Gude, A, J. Jukes-Browne, Professor v. Maehrenthal, S. Pace, 

 H. A. Pilsbry, C. Davies Sherborn, and C. W. Stiles were of opinion 

 that the varietal name should be retained. 



M. Dautzenherg further pointed out that this is complementary 

 to the common custom of transforming the specific into the varietal 

 name, when a species after being described is considered to be the 

 variety of another species. 



Mr. Pilsbry wrote also : " This view is generally, though not 

 universally held, and was discussed in the celebrated case of Cyprma 

 greegori, var. coloba. It might be well to obtain an expression of 

 opinion upon the question of whether in one genus two varieties may 

 bear the same name. Thus : 



Cyclostoma angusiuni, var, rnfilahre. 

 ,, jayanum, var. rufilahrey 



The opposite opinion (viz. that the new specific name should be used) 

 was expressed by Colonel Beddome, Professor Brusina, "W. E. Hoj^e, 

 and Colonel Wilmer, on the grounds that the author of the variety 

 had failed to properly understand it (Brusina), that varietal names 

 have no status as against specific (Hoyle), and that varietal names 

 are seldom suitable for use as specific names (Brusina, Beddome, Hoyle). 



Mr. B. B. Woodward wrote: " Thei'e are varietal names that are 

 eminently good so long as they are used as such, but which would be 

 meaningless when used for specific designation. These would have 

 to yield place were the specific distinctness of form proved. If the 

 new specific name be given under the belief that the form is a valid 

 species, and it should prove that this is not the case, then the new 

 name becomes a synonym for the varietal one. It should, however, 



