﻿TOMLIN 
  : 
  A 
  SYSTKMATIC 
  LIST 
  OF 
  'IHK 
  MAUGINKM.IUJi. 
  243 
  

  

  radula 
  is 
  nearer 
  to 
  that 
  of 
  Marginella. 
  I 
  retain 
  tho 
  two 
  species 
  

   of 
  Pachijbathro7i, 
  owing 
  to 
  tho 
  continued 
  uncertainty 
  as 
  to 
  tlieir 
  

   affinities. 
  It 
  will 
  be 
  found 
  that 
  I 
  have 
  throughout 
  erred 
  rather 
  

   on 
  the 
  side 
  of 
  inclusion 
  than 
  of 
  exclusion, 
  and 
  I 
  am 
  convinced 
  that 
  

   this 
  is 
  the 
  correct 
  attitude 
  in 
  drawing 
  up 
  a 
  list 
  of 
  this 
  kind. 
  Thus 
  it 
  

   has 
  seemed 
  convenient 
  to 
  include 
  all 
  the 
  species 
  placed 
  by 
  Bolten 
  in 
  

   the 
  genus 
  Pterygia, 
  and 
  all 
  that 
  I 
  find 
  at 
  any 
  time 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  

   attributed 
  to 
  Volvaria. 
  Much 
  confusion 
  arose 
  over 
  this 
  genus 
  owing 
  

   to 
  Lamarck, 
  who, 
  after 
  erecting 
  it 
  in 
  1801 
  for 
  the 
  Tertiary 
  fossil 
  

   V. 
  5m//o«V/^s, 
  introduced 
  into 
  it 
  in 
  1822 
  several 
  species 
  of 
  Marginellids. 
  

   The 
  fossil 
  has 
  punctured 
  stritc 
  as 
  in 
  Action 
  and 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  a 
  liiillmella, 
  

   and 
  there 
  can 
  be 
  little 
  doubt 
  that 
  Roissy 
  and 
  D'Orbigny 
  were 
  right 
  

   in 
  placing 
  it 
  among 
  the 
  Tectibranclis. 
  It 
  might 
  possibly 
  have 
  been 
  

   more 
  consistent 
  similarly 
  to 
  list 
  everything 
  tliat 
  has 
  been 
  credited 
  to 
  

   Foluta, 
  but 
  this 
  would 
  luive 
  added 
  very 
  largely 
  to 
  my 
  task, 
  and 
  

   hardly 
  seemed 
  necessary 
  in 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  very 
  small 
  number 
  of 
  

   Marginellidae 
  known 
  at 
  the 
  period 
  when 
  Valuta 
  had 
  so 
  comprehensive 
  

   a 
  use. 
  

  

  The 
  author 
  of 
  the 
  list 
  of 
  Columbellidoe 
  already 
  referred 
  to 
  did 
  not 
  

   profess, 
  except 
  in 
  a 
  few 
  cases, 
  to 
  deal 
  with 
  the 
  identification 
  or 
  

   synonymy 
  of 
  the 
  names 
  he 
  catalogued, 
  though 
  he 
  seems 
  to 
  have 
  

   contemplated 
  undertaking 
  such 
  a 
  task 
  in 
  a 
  succeeding 
  paper. 
  This 
  

   is 
  a 
  question 
  with 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  endeavoured 
  to 
  deal, 
  nor 
  have 
  I 
  been 
  

   content 
  to 
  accept 
  blindly 
  the 
  dicta 
  of 
  previous 
  writers, 
  but 
  have 
  

   in 
  most 
  cases 
  formed 
  an 
  unbiassed 
  opinion 
  by 
  the 
  comparison 
  of 
  

   authentic 
  specimens. 
  

  

  The 
  order 
  followed 
  in 
  cataloguing 
  each 
  item 
  is 
  as 
  follows 
  : 
  after 
  

   the 
  specific 
  name 
  and 
  that 
  of 
  tlie 
  autlior 
  comes 
  the 
  genus 
  (in 
  brackets) 
  

   to 
  which 
  the 
  name 
  was 
  attributed 
  in 
  the 
  original 
  description; 
  then 
  

   tlie 
  date 
  of 
  publication 
  as 
  exactly 
  as 
  possible, 
  and 
  the 
  reference 
  to 
  

   the 
  original 
  description, 
  such 
  references 
  being 
  invariably 
  quoted 
  

   from 
  the 
  actual 
  work 
  or 
  serial 
  and 
  not 
  from 
  reprints 
  or 
  separata 
  with 
  

   altered 
  and 
  misleading 
  pagination. 
  The 
  type 
  locality 
  follows 
  and 
  

   the 
  location 
  of 
  type 
  or 
  types 
  wlien 
  I 
  have 
  been 
  able 
  to 
  ascertain 
  it. 
  

   It 
  should 
  be 
  inferred 
  that 
  omission 
  of 
  locality 
  implies 
  a 
  similar 
  

   omission 
  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  describer, 
  excejjt 
  in 
  cases 
  where 
  a 
  specific 
  

   name 
  has 
  been 
  proposed 
  to 
  replace 
  another 
  on 
  the 
  score 
  of 
  pre- 
  

   occupation. 
  It 
  is 
  then 
  obvious 
  tliat 
  the 
  type 
  locality 
  and 
  type- 
  

   specimen 
  relating 
  to 
  the 
  preoccupied 
  name 
  pertain 
  alike 
  to 
  its 
  

   successor, 
  but 
  to 
  economize 
  space 
  they 
  have 
  not 
  been 
  mentioned 
  

   again. 
  Names 
  are 
  all 
  copied 
  exactly 
  as 
  spelt 
  by 
  their 
  authors, 
  and 
  

   as 
  far 
  as 
  I 
  remember 
  there 
  are 
  only 
  three 
  cases 
  of 
  obvious 
  typo- 
  

   graphical 
  error 
  where 
  emendation 
  has 
  been 
  permissible, 
  viz. 
  Icevigata, 
  

   Braz., 
  aureocincta, 
  Stearns, 
  and 
  scintilla, 
  Jouss. 
  Where 
  "(var.)" 
  is 
  

   appended 
  to 
  a 
  name, 
  it 
  signifies 
  that 
  that 
  name 
  was 
  a 
  varietal 
  one 
  

   in 
  the 
  first 
  instance. 
  Misspellings 
  are 
  troublesome 
  and 
  numerous 
  

   though 
  comparatively 
  unimportant 
  ; 
  it 
  will, 
  however, 
  be 
  found 
  that 
  

   most 
  of 
  them 
  are 
  noticed 
  below, 
  though 
  such 
  are 
  not 
  cited 
  when 
  

   incidentally 
  occurring 
  in 
  the 
  text 
  of 
  a 
  work. 
  Petit 
  de 
  la 
  Saussaye, 
  

   Paetel, 
  and 
  Weinkauff 
  are 
  far 
  the 
  worst 
  offenders 
  in 
  this 
  way, 
  the 
  

  

  