296 PROCKKDINGS OF THK M ALACOLOGICAL SOCIEIY. 



Fistula NA. 



There is so much confusion surrounding this name that I feel 

 dubious about a perfect clearance. 



As regards Malacology, the name appears to have been first 

 introduced by Eruguiere in the Encycl. Metliod., Vers, vol. i, p. xii, 

 1789, with the following definition: — " Fistulane. FiHtulana. 

 Coquille tubulee, fusiforme, contenant deux valves dans sa cavite, 

 une des extreinites perforee." 



No species are attached, and in my opinion such an entry is 

 incomplete and too indeterminate for acceptance. In the plates to 

 the Encycl. Method., Vers, vol. ii, published 1791, pi. 167 is headed 

 " Taret. Teredo. Fistulane. Fistalana ", Twenty-four figures are 

 given, but none are named or referred to the two genera noted. 

 Consequently we are no nearer wliat was meant by Fisttilana. In 

 the explanation of the plate given bj' Bory de Saint Vincent, thirty-six 

 years afterwards, the identification read — 



"Figs. 1- 5. Teredo navalis, Lamk., v, 440. 



,, 6-15. Fistulana gregala, Lamk., v, 435. 

 ,, 16. corniformn, Lamk., v, 435. 



,, 17-22. clava, Lamk., v, 436. 



,, 23. logenula, Lamk., v, 435." 



This is merely of historicaj interest. 



Cuvier in the Tabl. Elera. Hist. Nat., 1798, p. 432, included 

 " La Fistulane, Brug. {^Teredo clava, Linn.)." 



In 1799, Lamarck, in the Mem. Mus. d'Hist. Nat., p. 90, wrote: 

 "Fistulane. Fistulatia. Co(j. tubulee, en massue, ouverte a son 

 extremite grele, et contenant dans sa cavite deux valves non 

 adberentes. Teredo clava. Gmel., Syst. nat., 4, p. 3748." 



We have here one of those puzzling problems wliere the type does 

 not agree with the diagnosis, but further consideration may be 

 deferred owing to the fact that the genus-name is invalid. Prior to 

 Bruguiere's proposal, the name Fistulana had been appropriated by 

 0. F. Miiller, who in the Zool. Dan. Prodr., 1776, introduced it, 

 Add., pp. 275-82, as a new name for Fistularta, used by him in the 

 body of the work. 0. Fabricius (Fauna Groenl., p. 441, 1780) 

 accepted Miiller's proposition, and uses tlie name without comment. 

 Consequently Bruguiere's name cannot be maintained at all. The 

 preceding review is necessary, as Hedley (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 

 vol. xxxiv, p. 436, 1909) recorded Fistulana mumia as new to 

 Australia, and noted in his synonymy the usage of tlie same 

 combination by Smith (Proc. Malac. Soc, vol. vi, p. 185, 1905). 

 Probably both these writers were governed by Ball's conclusion. 

 In the Trans. AVagner Free Inst. Sci. Philad., vol. iii, p. 826, 

 April, 1898, Dall recorded: " Bruguiere was the first to name 

 Fistulana, though he did not describe it or cite any species. Cuvier 

 sup|)lied a type, and this was adopted by Lamarck. For some time 

 later, however, Fistulanas and Gastrochaenas were confounded in 

 lists of the genus, while Gray injudiciously endeavoured to utilize 

 Ch(xna as a name for this group, Tryon became badly confused on 



