﻿lEEDALE 
  : 
  MOLLUSCAN 
  NOMENCLATPKAL 
  PROBLEMS. 
  37 
  

  

  p. 
  172. 
  Isarcha, 
  new 
  name 
  ior 
  San 
  fftmiolaria, 
  Ijam. 
  

  

  Procos 
  Capsa. 
  

  

  Armida 
  Cyprina. 
  

  

  Cerceis 
  ITippopus. 
  

  

  p. 
  173. 
  Eufira 
  Iridina, 
  Lam. 
  

  

  p. 
  174. 
  NaimmacTia 
  Laniogerus. 
  

  

  Philopseudes 
  Psyche. 
  

  

  Herse 
  Cuvieria. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  already 
  drawn 
  attention 
  to 
  Lora, 
  Anopsia, 
  Eydromyles, 
  

   Charo^'ia, 
  and 
  would 
  here 
  note 
  that 
  Hyper 
  ia 
  and 
  nerse,\)oi\\ 
  provided 
  

   for 
  Cuvieria, 
  were 
  each 
  invalid, 
  but 
  such 
  a 
  name 
  as 
  Ecmanis 
  may 
  

   later 
  be 
  called 
  into 
  use. 
  If 
  a 
  substitute 
  for 
  Glaiicus 
  be 
  needed 
  

   Badone 
  must 
  be 
  considered, 
  while 
  the 
  two 
  substitutes 
  for 
  Cavolinia 
  as 
  

   used 
  by 
  Eschcholtz 
  & 
  d'Orbigny 
  need 
  criticism, 
  but 
  as 
  Fabius 
  is 
  

   invalid 
  neither 
  may 
  claim 
  usage. 
  The 
  consideration 
  of 
  tlie 
  preceding 
  

   confirms 
  my 
  conclusion 
  that 
  all 
  are 
  absolutely 
  substitute 
  names, 
  and 
  

   can 
  only 
  be 
  determined 
  as 
  such, 
  and 
  consequently 
  the 
  mention 
  of 
  

   a 
  species 
  cannot 
  legitimatize 
  Gistel's 
  name 
  in 
  that 
  connexion 
  as 
  

   opposed 
  to 
  its 
  substitution 
  value. 
  

  

  Damoniella, 
  gen. 
  nov. 
  for 
  Bulla 
  cranchii, 
  Fleming. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  Proc. 
  Zool. 
  Soc. 
  Lond., 
  1847, 
  p. 
  161, 
  ^^ 
  Roxania, 
  Leach 
  

   MSS.,1819. 
  Bulla 
  cr«?«cAu" 
  was 
  given 
  by 
  Gray. 
  This 
  was 
  published 
  

   in 
  November, 
  but 
  in 
  the 
  October 
  number 
  for 
  the 
  same 
  year 
  of 
  the 
  

   Ann. 
  & 
  Mag. 
  Nat. 
  Hist., 
  vol. 
  xx, 
  p. 
  268, 
  the 
  name 
  had 
  been 
  printed 
  

   as 
  '■'■ 
  Roxania 
  cranchii'\ 
  which 
  twenty 
  years 
  before 
  Turton, 
  in 
  the 
  

   Zool. 
  Journ., 
  vol. 
  ii, 
  p. 
  566, 
  1826, 
  had 
  recorded 
  from 
  Torbay 
  and 
  

   Scarborough. 
  However, 
  Bulla 
  cranchii 
  was 
  not 
  described 
  until 
  1828, 
  

   when 
  Fleming 
  gave 
  an 
  account 
  in 
  his 
  Hist. 
  Brit. 
  Anim. 
  [a^ite 
  April 
  1), 
  

   p. 
  292, 
  from 
  specimens 
  received 
  from 
  Leach 
  procured 
  at 
  Plymouth 
  

   Sound. 
  Leacli 
  was 
  apparently 
  distributing 
  species 
  under 
  his 
  generic 
  

   names 
  to 
  different 
  people, 
  and, 
  moreover, 
  different 
  species 
  were 
  

   confused. 
  Thus 
  Lamarck 
  described 
  Bulla 
  cortiea- 
  from 
  specimens 
  

   received 
  from 
  England, 
  citing 
  as 
  a 
  synonym 
  Bulla 
  crancki, 
  Leach. 
  

   This 
  species 
  has 
  been 
  identified 
  as 
  Bulla 
  hjdatis, 
  Linne, 
  which 
  seems 
  

   to 
  invalidate 
  the 
  specific 
  name. 
  Then 
  in 
  the 
  Mag. 
  Nat. 
  Hist. 
  

   (Loudon), 
  vol. 
  vii, 
  p. 
  352, 
  July, 
  1834, 
  Turton 
  described 
  Bulla 
  

   hyalina, 
  citing 
  in 
  association 
  with 
  it 
  the 
  genus 
  name 
  Roxania, 
  Leach 
  

   MS. 
  This 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  earliest 
  legitimate 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  name. 
  

   Since 
  this 
  species 
  is 
  quite 
  unlike 
  the 
  usually 
  accepted 
  one, 
  it 
  is 
  

   fortunate 
  that 
  Stephens 
  had 
  previously 
  proposed 
  Roxana 
  for 
  a 
  genus 
  

   of 
  I.epidoptera. 
  

  

  There 
  is 
  no 
  necessity 
  to 
  quibble 
  as 
  to 
  whether 
  Roxania 
  and 
  Roxana 
  

   may 
  be 
  iised 
  independently, 
  because 
  the 
  name 
  is 
  that 
  of 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  

   wives 
  of 
  Alexander 
  the 
  Great, 
  and 
  appears 
  under 
  both 
  spellings 
  in 
  

   liistory. 
  In 
  the 
  proof-sheets 
  of 
  tlie 
  Synopsis 
  of 
  tlie 
  Mollusca 
  of 
  

   Great 
  Britain, 
  printed 
  in 
  1819, 
  tlie 
  name 
  appears 
  on 
  pp. 
  49 
  and 
  60 
  

   as 
  Roxania, 
  but 
  in 
  the 
  MS. 
  index, 
  written 
  by 
  J. 
  E. 
  Gray, 
  it 
  is 
  spelt 
  

   Roxana. 
  

  

  