36 



THE NOMENCLATUEE OF THE VENERID.E : A REPLY TO • 

 DE. W. H. DALL. 



By A. J. Juxes-Bhowxic, IMl.S., F.G.S. 



Bead 12th January, 1912. 



In the September number of these "Proceedings" there is a short artich- 

 on this subject by Dr. AV. H. Dall whicli contains many statements 

 that cannot be passed over in silence. Dr. Dall natural!}' defends 

 his own views on nomenclature and generic grouping, but he also 

 makes assertions whicli cannot bo supported, e.g. when he declares 

 my writings to show that my '' idea of the relation of species is 

 largely based on superficial characters". 



I am quite sure that anyone who carefully peruses my papers 

 on the Veneridae will see that my generic groups are based on a full 

 consideration of all the characters of the shells, internal as well as 

 external, and that I have not allowed myself to magnify the im- 

 portance of some one or two characters, as Dr. Dall has done in 

 tlie case of the Mercenaria group, which he separates from the Chiime 

 group on small differences of sculpture and tooth-grauulatioii. 1 unite 

 them under the name of Venus. 



Again, it is not correct to say tliat in uniting Protothaca witli 

 Chione I ignore "the anatomical differences, the pallial sinus, tlie 

 hinge, and everything except the more or less reticulate surface 

 sculpture". Dr. Dall has apparently forgotten that in 1907 I wrote 

 to him about this very group, expressing my surprise tliat he liad 

 detached it from Chione and had placed it under Tapen. I then 

 asked him his reasons for doing so, since they were not obvious 

 from his description of the Protothaca shell, and I inquired about 

 the anatomy of the animal. Tlie following was all the reply which 

 he vouchsafed: "In putting Protothaca under Paphia, or associated 

 Avith the European forms, I have perhaps been biassed by the uniform 

 practice of naturalists for more than a century, but on reflection 

 I see no reason to change the location." I have only two comments 

 to make on this extraordinary statement — first, that if true it would 

 be a very weak argument; secondly, that it is incorrect. It lias 

 not been tlie uniform practice of conchologists to refer these shells 

 to Tapes ; the practice in Europe has been to refer them to Chione ; 

 thus Deshayes in 1853 placed most of the species under Chione^ 

 though he referred the type ( Venus Domhei) to his Venus group ,' 

 the Messrs. Adams adopted the same grouping in 18o7 ; by ilcimer 

 in 1867 they were all included under Chione. I need only add that 

 the principal species were listed as Chione by G. B. Sowerby in his 

 (Catalogue of the Pelecypoda (1903) to prove the inaccuracy of 

 Dr. Dall's statement. 



It must also be noticed that Dr. Dall's reply to my inquiry omits 

 any reference to anatomical differences. It is true that in his 

 Synopsis of 1902 he says of the animal of Protothaca that "the 



