﻿36 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  MALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIEiT. 
  

  

  this 
  note 
  Dr. 
  Bartsch 
  has 
  kindly 
  written 
  me 
  " 
  to 
  carefully 
  note 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  

   the 
  rules 
  . 
  . 
  . 
  and 
  to 
  hold 
  to 
  them 
  absolutely 
  rigidly 
  ". 
  It 
  is 
  some- 
  

   what 
  unfortunate 
  that 
  my 
  first 
  instance 
  of 
  the 
  rigid 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  

   Rules 
  should 
  be 
  in 
  connexion 
  with 
  one 
  of 
  Dr. 
  Bartsch's 
  own 
  rulings. 
  

   I, 
  however, 
  would 
  remedy 
  this 
  matter 
  by 
  proposing 
  

  

  Bartschklla, 
  no 
  v. 
  gen. 
  

  

  with 
  Dimkeria 
  suhangtdata, 
  Carpenter, 
  as 
  type. 
  

  

  On 
  Dall 
  & 
  Bartsch's 
  conclusions, 
  Dunkeria 
  would 
  replace 
  Pyrgismlus, 
  

   while 
  Bartschella 
  will 
  come 
  into 
  use 
  for 
  the 
  group 
  Dunkeria, 
  ])all 
  

   and 
  Bartsch, 
  1909. 
  

  

  A 
  matter 
  of 
  dates 
  may 
  here 
  be 
  stated. 
  In 
  quoting 
  Dunkeria 
  

   I 
  observed 
  that 
  Dall 
  & 
  Bartsch 
  wrote 
  " 
  Cat. 
  Mazatlan 
  Shells, 
  1856 
  ". 
  

   In 
  the 
  Proc. 
  U.S. 
  Nat. 
  Mus., 
  vol. 
  xlix, 
  July 
  24, 
  1915, 
  p. 
  34, 
  Bartsch 
  

   has 
  explained 
  this, 
  writing: 
  " 
  His 
  report. 
  Catalogue 
  of 
  the 
  Collection 
  

   •of 
  Mazatlan 
  Shells 
  in 
  the 
  British 
  Museum, 
  was 
  published 
  in 
  parts 
  

   during 
  the 
  years 
  1855-1857, 
  the 
  part 
  dealing 
  with 
  our 
  genus 
  

   appearing 
  in 
  1856." 
  This 
  is 
  not 
  quite 
  correct, 
  so 
  that 
  it 
  seems 
  

   jiecessary 
  to 
  publish 
  the 
  facts 
  at 
  once 
  in 
  order 
  to 
  avoid 
  complications 
  

   later. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  Cat. 
  Lib. 
  Brit. 
  Mus. 
  (Nat. 
  Hist.), 
  vol. 
  i, 
  1903, 
  p. 
  318, 
  under 
  

   'Carpenter 
  (P. 
  P.), 
  an 
  edition 
  published 
  at 
  Warrington 
  is 
  recorded 
  

   with 
  the 
  dates 
  " 
  1855-57 
  ". 
  This, 
  however, 
  is 
  only 
  a 
  re-issue 
  of 
  the 
  

   London 
  edition 
  with 
  a 
  new 
  title-page 
  and 
  preface, 
  and 
  the 
  dates 
  

   1855-7 
  are 
  therefore 
  wrongly 
  given. 
  It 
  was 
  published 
  later 
  

   than 
  the 
  London 
  edition, 
  and 
  the 
  dates 
  only 
  refer 
  to 
  the 
  proof-sheets, 
  

   not 
  to 
  publication. 
  The 
  Mazatlan 
  Catalogue 
  was 
  "Printed 
  by 
  P. 
  P. 
  

   Carpenter, 
  Oberlin 
  Press, 
  Warrington", 
  but 
  \f 
  as 
  published 
  in 
  07ie 
  item 
  

   by 
  the 
  British 
  Museum 
  authorities 
  after 
  June, 
  1857. 
  A 
  preface 
  was 
  

   written 
  by 
  John 
  Edward^Gray, 
  signed 
  "April 
  22, 
  1857 
  ". 
  The 
  first 
  

   sheet 
  bears 
  the 
  signature 
  "July 
  1855 
  b", 
  the 
  second 
  "Aug. 
  1855 
  c", 
  

   the 
  third 
  " 
  Aug. 
  1855 
  d", 
  and 
  so 
  on, 
  the 
  last 
  bearing 
  " 
  June 
  1857 
  yy 
  ". 
  

   The 
  signatures 
  have 
  been 
  mistaken 
  by 
  Bartsch 
  for 
  dates 
  of 
  publication, 
  

   but 
  Carpenter, 
  on 
  p. 
  546, 
  wrote, 
  "The 
  proof-sheets 
  of 
  this 
  work 
  

   having 
  been 
  submitted 
  to 
  several 
  naturalists, 
  and 
  fresh 
  sources 
  of 
  

   information 
  having 
  been 
  obtained 
  during 
  its 
  progress, 
  the 
  following 
  

   errors 
  have 
  been 
  discovered 
  and 
  additions 
  made." 
  

  

  Elusa, 
  a. 
  Adams. 
  

  

  Mlusa 
  was 
  proposed 
  by 
  A. 
  Adams 
  in 
  the 
  Ann. 
  Mag. 
  Nat. 
  Hist., 
  

   ser. 
  iir, 
  vol. 
  vii, 
  April, 
  1861, 
  p. 
  297, 
  with 
  only 
  species 
  E. 
  teres. 
  He 
  

   later 
  included 
  in 
  the 
  genus 
  his 
  Pyramidella 
  subulata 
  of 
  the 
  Thes. 
  

   Conch., 
  vol. 
  ii, 
  1855, 
  p. 
  815, 
  pi. 
  clxxii, 
  fig. 
  13; 
  Proc. 
  Zool. 
  Soc, 
  

   May 
  16, 
  1855, 
  p. 
  177, 
  pi. 
  xx, 
  fig. 
  6. 
  This 
  species 
  was 
  erroneously 
  

   given 
  as 
  the 
  example 
  by 
  Fischer 
  (Man. 
  de 
  Conch., 
  p. 
  787, 
  Aug. 
  31, 
  

   1885). 
  This 
  error 
  prejudiced 
  writers 
  such 
  as 
  Hedley, 
  Smith, 
  and 
  

   Melvill, 
  who 
  utilized 
  jElusa 
  for 
  subulata. 
  It 
  escaped 
  the 
  notice 
  of 
  

   these 
  writers 
  that 
  A. 
  Adams 
  had 
  been 
  anticipated 
  in 
  his 
  selection 
  of 
  

   Musa 
  by 
  Walker 
  in 
  the 
  List 
  Spec. 
  Lepid. 
  Insects, 
  B.M., 
  pt. 
  xvi, 
  

   p. 
  202, 
  1858. 
  

  

  