304 niOCUKDlNGS OF THK M ALACOLOGICAL SOCIKTY. 



HetUey, in his Catulogue of the Marine MoUiisca of Queensland 

 (Proc. Austral. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Brisbane, 1909, p. 344), has 

 included, perhaps by inadvertence, Perna and Melina. The former 

 Avas used for the isognomum group, to wliich it has no claim whatever. 

 Perna, as so used, dated from Bruguiere, 1789, but the writers who 

 so utilized it overlooked tliat lletzius, in 1788, had previously 

 appropriated the name in a different sense. In the same paper where 

 Placenta and Melina were proposed Retzius introduced Perna. This 

 introduction w'as for the species of Mytiliis, Linne, Ave now consider 

 typical Mytilus. It was due to such cases as the present that * type 

 l)y elimination ' came to be discarded. I note this as in mv 

 succeeding note I have to consider a case where results were achieved 

 by this usage, and which must be now discarded. In the present case 

 lletzius was the first to split up the Linnean Mytihis, and he 

 dissociated what we now consider MytiluH under the name Perna 

 and left the Ostreiform shells to bear that name. Ketzius was not 

 followed b}' later writers, but by exact elimination much confusion 

 would have to be faced. Retzius' Perna must therefore be considered 

 ou its merits and not simply as a substitute for Mytilus, Linne, as 

 it is not, but a subdivision. Fortunately, the type is easily fixed, 

 being the first species, Perna mayellatiica, Retzius, a new name for 

 Mya perna, L. Perna then falls under Mytilus. Linne, but becomes 

 the earliest name for the sub-genus for which Jukes- Browne, in his 

 Review of the Genera of the Family Mytilidce (these Proceedings, 

 vol. vi, p. 218, 190.5), used the name Chloromya, Morch, with type 

 2[. perna, Linne. The exact reference to the paper in which Retzius 

 ])roposes the names Placenta, Chcena, Perna, and Melina, is Diss. 

 Hist. Nat. Nov. Test. Gen., 1788, the pages being respectively 15, 

 19, 20, and 22. 



Retzius stated that Chcena was simply proposed as a substitute name 

 for Gastrochcena, Spengler, as Spengler's name was not euphonious. 



Anatina, Lamarck. 



When Dall wrote about theBoltenian generic names (Journ. Conch., 

 vol. xi, 190d) on p. 296 he left as undetermined — 



'■'■ Laternula (1 Mya truncata, Gmel.) = Mya (L.) -1- Lam., Auriscalpium, 

 Megerle, 1811 -\- Anatina, Lam., 1812." 



He had probably overlooked the fact that Gray in the Proc. Zool. 

 Soc, 1847, p. 190, has designated as type of Laternula, L. anatina, 

 and had used Bolten's genus name to displace Anatina. As the type- 

 species was also called lanterna the coincidence is exact. It appears 

 that Anatina cannot be {)reserved in any case, as most writers quote 

 as e(juivalent Megeile's Auriscalpitim, and that name lias also priority 

 over Anatina, the latter not being published until 1818, so that 

 Latermda must at once be made u.se of. 



I find, since the preceding was written, that Dall in the Trans. "Wagn. 

 Free Inst. Sci., vol. iii, p. 1530, October, 1903, that is, previous to his 

 essa^' on the Boltenian names, actually made use of Laternula in place 

 of Anatina. Peculiarly enough this alteration has escaped the notice 



