CALL : ox THE GENUS FASOPE. 35 



iS"ow, on referring to the abbreviated synopsis of the January memoir 

 wliich appears in the Annales du Museum (vol. ix, pp. 131-9, pi. xii) 

 in the March and April numbers (probably issued in May), we find at 

 the head of the formal description and on the following page in the 

 synonj'uiy that the name Fanope has been changed to Panopea. This 

 change is of course inadmissible under the rules of nomenclature, and 

 the first published name for the genus must stand. The specific name 

 given by Menard to the Mediterranean recent species must give way to 

 that applied to it by Born twenty-seven years previously, and the name 

 of the type of the genus will therefore be Panope ghjcymeris (Born). 



In 1812, in his Extrait du Cours de Zoologie, a synopsis of lectures 

 delivered at the Museum, Lamarck uses the name Panope (p. 108), 

 but in 1818, in the fifth volume of the Animaux sans Vertehres 

 (j). 156), he introduces the erroneous form Panopeea without comment. 

 This form is indicated by Carus and Englemann (Bibl. Zool., ii, p. 922, 

 1861) as used by Menard in the Nouveau Bulletin des Sciences, 

 Societe Philomatique (Paris, 1809, t. i. No. 19, pp. 513-14), but on 

 reference to the paper itself this is seen to be erroneous, as only the 

 French form of the word is used in the review of Menard's paper 

 there printed. This laxity of citation appears in the work of nearly 

 everyone who has referred to the nomenclature of the genus, and 

 only a reference to the original will ensure to the student freedom 

 from error. 



The only other reference to the correct name I have been able to 

 find is that of Herrmannsen, who, not having seen the original paper, 

 cites it as Panopeea (Index Gen. Mai., ii, p. 197, 1847) with doubt, 

 and in his Addenda et Corrigenda of 1852 notes it as ^^ Panope she 

 Panopea^ Virgilio". To this authors seem to have paid no attention. 

 Under various foi-ms, Panopea^ Panopia, etc., the name has remained 

 in the works of those citing the genus. In 1889 the Marcjuis 

 <li Monterosato proposed (Journ. de Conchyl., xxxvii, p. 26, note, 

 1889) to reserve the sjiecific name ghjcymeris, Born, for the form 

 found on the coasts of Spain, and to apply a new name, cyclopana, to 

 the more elongated type found on the shores of Sicily and the 

 Cyclopean Islands. The present writer has seen too few specimens 

 ■of the European shell to have formed a positive opinion, but, if one 

 may judge bj' analogy from the Floridan and Californian species of 

 Panope, such modifications would fall well Avithin the limits of 

 specific variation. 



