OP CONCHOLOGY. 257 



has the right to deprive an author of his specific name, upon 

 any such pretense as using it for a generic name — it is down- 

 right robbery. Nothing personal is intended by this remark, 

 as Dr. Gray has doubtless innocently followed an established but 

 very bad custom. 



Clypeola tenuis, so called, N. S. Hab. New Zealand. 



The description is as follows : " Shell thin, conical, depressed, 

 smooth." Now we decline to adopt this, as the words are an 

 exact repetition of the first five words of the description of 0. 

 clypeola, and therefore afford no means of identification.* 



0. pileus, Lam., should have priority over corrugata, Rve. 



Trochella, N. Gen. Type T. maculata, Quoy ; Syn. T. 

 comma-notata, Sowb. 



Crepipatella rugulosa, strigata and pallida, Brod., are made 

 synonymous with dilatata, Lam. 



Crypta, Humphrey. Under this genus Dr. Gray observes 

 " Messrs. H. & A. Adams formed the genus Inacus for the 

 white flat specimen of this genus," and that this white color is 

 the consequence of individuals living within other shells and not 

 even specific, and that as he had described this change of color, 

 form and surface in the Philos. Trans. 1838, there is no excuse 

 for the formation of species, much less genera, on such charac- 

 ters. To this we would remark, 



1st. That Messrs. Adams did not make a genus Inacus, but 

 a sub-genus Ianacus, Mbrch, is given in their work. 



2d. That the sub-genus Ianacus has not been separated on 

 account of color, and indeed color is not mentioned in its de- 

 scription. 



3d. What does Dr. Gray mean by " the white flat specimen 

 of this genus." He admits no less than seven species after 

 reducing numerous species to the place of synonyms. 



O. aculeata. — C. echinus and hystrix, Brod., and C. Californica, 

 Nuttall, are made synonyms. 



0. porcellana, Lam. (why not Linn. ?). C. fornicata, Linn., C. 

 arenata, excavata and marginalis, Brod., C aplysioides, Reeve, 



* " Mr. Lovell Reeve, in his ' Conchologia Iconica,' has divided the 



specimens into thirty-three species, &c I think I may state. 



without any fear of contradiction, that it is utterly impossible to dis- 

 tinguish a large proportion of the species proposed in this work by the 

 specific characters, or even by the figures given. Such characters and 

 species are merely to satisfy the rule that a species is not established un- 

 less it is characterized ; but surely that implies that it shall be character- 

 ized so that it may be distinguished ; otherwise, as in this case, it is a 

 mere pretence, and therefore best avoided." — Dr. Gray, on Catillus 

 Zool. Proc, 993, 1867. 



Comment is probably unnecessary. 



