﻿220 
  

   NOTES. 
  

  

  On 
  the 
  adventures 
  of 
  thk 
  genus 
  name 
  Lvcena. 
  {Read 
  

   9th 
  March, 
  1917.)— 
  In 
  1815 
  Oken 
  (Lehrb. 
  Naturg., 
  iii, 
  p. 
  312) 
  created 
  the 
  

   superfluous 
  name 
  Lucena 
  for 
  Draparnaud's 
  Succinea, 
  giving 
  as 
  example 
  

   Lticena 
  p^Uris. 
  

  

  In 
  1821 
  J. 
  D. 
  W. 
  Hartmann 
  applied 
  the 
  name 
  to 
  Draparnaud's 
  Helix 
  

   naticoides 
  [ 
  = 
  11. 
  apertu'], 
  which 
  he 
  called 
  Lucena 
  tapada 
  (Neue 
  Alpina, 
  

   i, 
  pp. 
  202, 
  208, 
  note, 
  and 
  245 
  [as 
  L. 
  tvpada], 
  pi. 
  i, 
  f. 
  30 
  and 
  31), 
  and 
  put 
  

   L. 
  putris, 
  succinea, 
  etc., 
  into 
  Ampluhina 
  (his 
  own 
  corruption 
  for 
  Amphi- 
  

   hulima 
  of 
  Lamarck). 
  He 
  inveighs 
  against 
  Fe'russac, 
  who 
  puts 
  it 
  with 
  his 
  

   Cochloides 
  (Tabl. 
  Syst. 
  Limagons, 
  1821, 
  January 
  ed., 
  p. 
  30, 
  June 
  ed., 
  p. 
  26), 
  

   maintaining 
  (Neue 
  Alpina, 
  i, 
  p. 
  208, 
  note, 
  and 
  again 
  later 
  in 
  Sturm's 
  

   Deutschl. 
  Fauna, 
  vi, 
  lift. 
  5, 
  pp. 
  27, 
  28) 
  that 
  its 
  correct 
  place 
  was 
  with 
  

   Ferussac's 
  Seminuda), 
  next 
  to 
  Daudebardia 
  [ 
  = 
  Helicophanta, 
  Fer.]. 
  Here 
  

   he 
  places 
  it 
  in 
  the 
  " 
  Verzeiohniss 
  " 
  given 
  in 
  Sturm 
  (vi, 
  lift. 
  5, 
  p. 
  54), 
  

   and 
  the 
  species 
  tapada 
  not 
  being 
  German 
  its 
  place 
  is 
  taken 
  by 
  Lucena 
  

   pnlcJiella, 
  described 
  in 
  a 
  footnote 
  as 
  "n.sp." 
  

  

  This 
  last 
  nonien 
  nudum 
  caught 
  the 
  eye 
  of 
  J. 
  E. 
  Gray, 
  who 
  without 
  

   further 
  research, 
  and 
  oblivious 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  Helix 
  pidchella 
  was 
  duly 
  

   cited 
  by 
  Hartmann 
  two 
  pages 
  further 
  back, 
  mistook 
  it 
  for 
  a 
  synonym 
  of 
  

   the 
  latter, 
  and 
  accordingly 
  so 
  rendered 
  it 
  in 
  his 
  edition 
  of 
  Turton's 
  

   jManual, 
  1840 
  (p. 
  142), 
  tacking 
  on 
  to 
  it 
  a 
  reference 
  to 
  Hartmann's 
  

   " 
  t. 
  1, 
  f. 
  6", 
  which 
  is 
  for 
  Helix 
  pulchella, 
  that 
  for 
  Lucena 
  being 
  f. 
  8. 
  

   This 
  erroneous 
  citation 
  was 
  copied 
  bodily 
  by 
  Dupuy 
  (Hist. 
  nat. 
  Moll. 
  

   I'' 
  ranee, 
  p. 
  IGl, 
  1848). 
  Moquin-Tandon 
  also 
  blindly 
  accepted 
  this 
  

   synonymy 
  (Hist. 
  Moll. 
  France, 
  ii, 
  1855, 
  p. 
  140), 
  and 
  seeing 
  that 
  the 
  

   alleged 
  Hartmann's 
  Lucena 
  (1821) 
  had 
  priority 
  over 
  Risso's 
  Vallonia 
  

   (1826) 
  gave 
  the 
  former 
  name 
  to 
  the 
  section 
  of 
  Helix, 
  which 
  he 
  established 
  

   for 
  MuUer's 
  H. 
  pulchella. 
  Pilsbry 
  fortunately 
  evaded 
  this 
  pitfall, 
  and 
  

   Hartmann's 
  Lucena 
  tapada 
  appears 
  correctly 
  under 
  Helix 
  aperta 
  (Man. 
  

   Conch., 
  ser. 
  ii, 
  vol. 
  ix, 
  p. 
  316), 
  whilst 
  his 
  Lucena 
  pidchella 
  is, 
  properly, 
  

   ignored. 
  B. 
  B. 
  Woodward. 
  

  

  Note 
  on 
  the 
  Da 
  Costa 
  plates 
  adapted 
  for 
  IIackett's 
  edition 
  

   of 
  Pulteney's 
  Catalogues. 
  {Read 
  9th 
  March, 
  1917.) 
  — 
  No 
  further 
  

   light 
  has 
  been 
  shed 
  on 
  the 
  former 
  proprietorship 
  of 
  these 
  plates 
  since 
  

   Mr. 
  Reynell's 
  description 
  of 
  them 
  (Proc. 
  Malac. 
  Soc, 
  xii, 
  1916, 
  p. 
  43), 
  

   but 
  in 
  going 
  through 
  I'ulteney's 
  1799 
  edition 
  with 
  the 
  Rackett 
  second 
  

   (1813) 
  edition, 
  it 
  was 
  noticed 
  that 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  references 
  to 
  " 
  Trit. 
  

   Brit." 
  in 
  the 
  former 
  had 
  all 
  been 
  omitted 
  in 
  the 
  latter. 
  

  

  Turning 
  to 
  Pulteney's 
  " 
  Explanation 
  of 
  the 
  abbreviated 
  Names 
  of 
  

   Authors" 
  on 
  p. 
  24, 
  the 
  following 
  consecutive 
  entries 
  are 
  seen 
  : 
  — 
  

  

  '■'Ha 
  Costa. 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  I'l 
  Mendez, 
  British 
  Conchology, 
  French 
  and 
  

   English, 
  with 
  17 
  Tables, 
  Lond., 
  1778, 
  4to. 
  

  

  Trit. 
  Brit. 
  Ti-iton 
  Britaniiicus 
  ; 
  a 
  new 
  Impression 
  of 
  the 
  foregoing 
  

   Plates, 
  with 
  Seven 
  additional 
  Tables. 
  MS." 
  

  

  This 
  last, 
  then, 
  is 
  obviously 
  the 
  source 
  of 
  the 
  plates 
  for 
  the 
  Rackett 
  

   edition, 
  the 
  seventh 
  plate 
  having 
  been 
  cut 
  vip 
  and 
  the 
  figures 
  distributed 
  

   as 
  already 
  described. 
  Hence, 
  Rackett's 
  statement 
  on 
  p. 
  23 
  : 
  " 
  The 
  plates 
  

   of 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  British 
  Conchology 
  have 
  been 
  revised 
  and 
  altered, 
  and 
  

   six 
  additional 
  ones 
  engraved, 
  to 
  give 
  further 
  illustration 
  to 
  the 
  

   descriptions." 
  

  

  Since 
  Mr. 
  Reynell's 
  article 
  was 
  written 
  an 
  excellent 
  holograph 
  of 
  

   Rackett's 
  has 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  the 
  Linnean 
  Society's 
  copy 
  of 
  his 
  edition 
  

   of 
  Pulteney's 
  Catalogues, 
  establishing 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  inscriptions 
  in 
  the 
  

   copies 
  of 
  ]\Iaton 
  & 
  Rackett's 
  " 
  Descnptive 
  Catalogue 
  of 
  British 
  Testacea" 
  

   are 
  in 
  his 
  handwriting. 
  B. 
  B. 
  Woodward. 
  

  

  