﻿92 
  PUOCEKDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  JI 
  ALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  fusca, 
  Brug., 
  1789; 
  Co7ius 
  araneosus, 
  Briig., 
  1792; 
  C. 
  augur, 
  Bnip;., 
  

   1792; 
  C. 
  leoninus, 
  (jiraelin, 
  1791; 
  C. 
  nodurnus, 
  Brug., 
  1792; 
  

   C. 
  quercinus,^r\x^., 
  1792; 
  C. 
  s^dcat^ls,JSYn^., 
  1792; 
  Cymhium 
  vielo, 
  

   Bolten, 
  1798; 
  Cyprceanelulosa, 
  Ginelin, 
  1791; 
  Helix 
  undafa,GmeYu\, 
  

   1791; 
  Mtirex 
  pUcatus, 
  Gmelin, 
  1791 
  ; 
  Mt/a 
  ovalis, 
  Pulteney, 
  1799; 
  

   Patella 
  mytilfformis, 
  Graelin, 
  1791 
  ; 
  Solen 
  antiqiiatus, 
  Pulteney, 
  

   1799; 
  Trochis 
  tectus, 
  Gmelin, 
  1791 
  ; 
  Turbo 
  cornutus, 
  Gmelin, 
  1791 
  ; 
  

   Vohita 
  arausiaca, 
  Shaw, 
  1790; 
  and 
  F. 
  scap/ia, 
  Gmelin, 
  1791. 
  

  

  Most, 
  if 
  not 
  all, 
  of 
  these 
  Solander 
  names 
  are 
  quoted 
  by 
  Dillwyn 
  in 
  

   his 
  synonymy, 
  but 
  I 
  have 
  refrained 
  from 
  citing 
  Dillwyn's 
  equivalents 
  

   as 
  it 
  is 
  commonly 
  known 
  that 
  tliese 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  exact, 
  and 
  I 
  might 
  

   only 
  cause 
  confusion. 
  Thus 
  Area 
  fusca 
  of 
  Solander 
  is 
  cited 
  as 
  

   a 
  synonym 
  of 
  Area 
  imhricata, 
  Bruguiere, 
  over 
  which 
  it 
  has 
  priority, 
  

   while 
  it 
  invalidates 
  the 
  later 
  Area 
  fusea, 
  Bruguiere. 
  The 
  exact 
  

   determination 
  of 
  the 
  correct 
  names 
  of 
  the 
  two 
  species 
  concerned 
  

   would 
  need 
  special 
  knowledge, 
  for 
  E. 
  A. 
  Smith 
  has 
  shown 
  that 
  

   Lamy's 
  synonymy 
  of 
  these 
  complex 
  bivalves 
  is 
  open 
  to 
  correction. 
  

  

  Strombijs 
  LiviDUS, 
  Liuue. 
  

  

  Hedley, 
  in 
  the 
  Proc. 
  Linn. 
  Soc. 
  N.S.W., 
  1909, 
  vol. 
  xxxiv, 
  p. 
  453, 
  

   used 
  Drillia 
  livida 
  ex 
  Gmelin, 
  explaining: 
  "In 
  the 
  absence 
  of 
  

   a 
  figure 
  and 
  a 
  type, 
  the 
  Linnean 
  Stromhus 
  lividus 
  is, 
  according 
  to 
  

   Hanley, 
  unrecognizable. 
  Under 
  these 
  circumstances 
  it 
  is 
  better 
  to 
  

   adopt 
  tlie 
  name 
  of 
  Gmelin, 
  securely 
  based 
  on 
  the 
  figure 
  of 
  Chemnitz 
  

   (Conch. 
  Cab., 
  ix, 
  1786, 
  pi. 
  136, 
  f. 
  1269-70), 
  than 
  to 
  use 
  Lamarck's 
  

   auricuhferay 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  made 
  it 
  a 
  rule 
  never 
  to 
  accept 
  second-hand 
  determinations, 
  

   so 
  that 
  to 
  me 
  Linne's 
  species 
  being 
  indeterminable 
  Gmelin's 
  inter- 
  

   pretation 
  did 
  not 
  systematically 
  concern 
  me, 
  save 
  as 
  a 
  synonym. 
  

   For 
  the 
  shell 
  figured 
  by 
  Chemnitz, 
  Bolten 
  (prior 
  to 
  Lamarck) 
  had 
  

   proposed 
  two 
  names, 
  viz., 
  (Mus. 
  Bolteniaiium, 
  p. 
  100) 
  8\tromhus~\ 
  

   canalicularis, 
  and 
  (p. 
  124) 
  T\iurris\ 
  St. 
  Stephani. 
  I 
  should 
  therefore 
  

   have 
  preferred 
  the 
  safe 
  metliod 
  of 
  nomination 
  and 
  called 
  the 
  shell 
  

   " 
  Drillia 
  " 
  canalieularis 
  (Bolten). 
  The 
  sequel 
  appears 
  in 
  the 
  present 
  

   publication, 
  as 
  on 
  p. 
  91 
  we 
  read, 
  "A 
  pair 
  of 
  large 
  and 
  fine 
  Stromhus 
  

   lividus, 
  L., 
  from 
  Guinea, 
  Lister, 
  121, 
  17, 
  rare." 
  Here 
  we 
  have 
  

   a 
  definite 
  and 
  earlier 
  attempt 
  to 
  fix 
  the 
  Linnean 
  species, 
  and, 
  

   moreover, 
  one 
  more 
  valuable 
  than 
  Gmelin's, 
  as 
  Solander 
  was 
  a 
  personal 
  

   pupil 
  of 
  Linne 
  and 
  more 
  likely 
  to 
  know 
  the 
  Linnean 
  shell. 
  I 
  cite 
  

   this 
  as 
  of 
  interest 
  in 
  confirming 
  my 
  proposed 
  usage 
  of 
  the 
  Boltenian 
  

   species-name, 
  and 
  not 
  as 
  an 
  incentive 
  to 
  use 
  Solander's 
  acceptance 
  of 
  

   the 
  Linnean 
  name. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  cited 
  '^Drillia" 
  as 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  consider 
  this 
  genus-name 
  in 
  any- 
  

   way 
  satisfactory. 
  It 
  is 
  restricted 
  to 
  the 
  species 
  J). 
  u?nbilieata, 
  Gray, 
  

   fixed 
  as 
  type 
  in 
  1847, 
  and 
  I 
  cannot 
  trace 
  any 
  knowledge 
  of 
  the 
  animal 
  

   of 
  this 
  apparently 
  aberrant 
  ppecies. 
  It 
  belongs 
  to 
  the 
  west 
  coast 
  

   of 
  Africa, 
  where 
  also 
  Clavatula 
  typical 
  is 
  found, 
  and 
  the 
  shell 
  

   characters 
  of 
  this 
  genus, 
  as 
  commonly 
  utilized, 
  approach 
  so 
  closely 
  

   that 
  it 
  is 
  difficult 
  to 
  separate 
  these 
  genera. 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  believe 
  the 
  

   Pacific 
  '^ 
  Drillia^', 
  especially 
  the 
  smaller 
  species, 
  are 
  closely 
  related. 
  

  

  