IIIEDALE : ON MISUSED GEXKEIC NAIIES, 305 



of recent workers such as Hedley and Smith, who have botli recently 

 utilized Anati?ia. I see Dall quoted "■ Anatina, Lamarck, Phil. Zool., 

 p, 319, 1809 ", but this is a pure mistake, as only vernacular names 

 occur in that work, and the eaidiest date Anatina was used as a Latin 

 word appears to be in 1818; in 1812, also commonly quoted, a vernacular 

 name only was used. Tbe earliest introduction by Lamarck of Anatina 

 is in the Anim. sans Vert., vol. v, 1818, p. 462, and consequently, 

 in addition to its being preceded by Laternula and Auriscalpitnn, it is 

 preoccupied by Anatina, Schumacher, Kssai nouv. syst. Test., 1817, 

 pp. 42 and 125, proposed for a different mollusc. 



Cypeicia, Graj'. 



Dealing with Australian Mactridje, Mr. Edgar Smith (Proc. Malac. 

 Soc, vol. xi, June 1914, p. 150) used Ci/pricia, pointing out that 

 Labioaa, recently accepted in preference by Dall and Hedley, was 

 introduced in a somewhat doubtful manner as a new iMimeiov Anatina, 

 Schumacher, whereas Cypricia was legitimately proposed by Gray 

 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. xi, p. 43, 1853), concluding, " It becomes 

 a question whether the genus Cypricia should not be retained rather 

 than Zabiosa." My own rendering of the Laws led me to side with 

 Dall and Hedley, but my results in connexion with the preceding 

 remove all doubtful points. For 



Anatina, Schumacher 



is the earliest and correct name for the genus, both Zahiosa and 

 Cypricia being provided as substitutes for that name under the 

 jnistaken idea that it was later in date than the same name of 

 Lamarck, 



!Meleagiuna, Lamarck. 



This name has l)een quite commonly used riglit up to the present 

 time, but I have failed to recognize exactly how many names have 

 prior claim. I have noted Margaritophora, Megerle, 1811, Margarita, 

 Leacli, 1814, ajid Perlawater, Schiimaclier, 1817, as all anterior to 

 Lamarck's name proposed in 1819 (Anim. s. Vert., vol. vi, 1819, 

 p. 150). A better substitute than any of tliese seems to be 



Pinctada, Bolten. 



In the paper just quoted Dall left it undetermined as 

 ^'^ Pinctada (1 Myt. margaritiferus, Gme\.) — Avicula, Brug., 1791, 

 + Malleus, Lam., 1799 -j- Margaritophora, Megerle, 1811 ", 



I would designate P. margaritifera, Bolten, the first species, as 

 type, and thus make Bolten's name valid for this group, which is 

 known to the French as " Pintadines ". Referring to the Diet. Sci. 

 Nat. (Levrault), vol. xli, 1826, p. 93, I also noted the following: — 



" Pintade (C*o?«cA). Les marchands de coijuilles paroissent donner 

 ce nom a la coquille qui fournit le plus ordinairement les perles, 

 niytilus margaritiferus, Linn., avicula margaritifera, Brug. ; Pintadina 

 margaritifera, de M. de Lamarck, mais a, un etat particulier, qu'ils 

 out designe par la denomination de merle-perle sterile (De B.). 



PiNTADiNE, Meleagrina {Conchyl.) . . ." 



