l8o CURRENT LITERATURE. 



time are unaccompanied by descriptions or figures. This practice of publishing 

 mere names serves no useful purpose, and only encumbers bibliography, which, as 

 working conchologists know to their cost, is sufficiently complicated already. 



It will, doubtless, be a surprise to many to find Helix included in the foreign 

 genera " which have one by one been eliminated from our list," and this surprise 

 will not be lessened when, on scanning this list, they learn that instead of Helix 

 no less than iS " genera," with 5 sub-genera have been adopted. Of the 

 former, Otoconcha, Pyrrka, and Suteria each contains but one species, and 

 Kheuea and Ceronlia two species each. It may well be asked, whither will this 

 lead us, and where is this to end ? Hitherto the chief source of trouble has been 

 the undue splitting up of species, but this is of slight importance as compared to 

 this latest innovation in systematic conchology. It is to be earnestly hoped that 

 other revisors of faunas will refrain from emulating this needless multiplication of 

 genera. Another reprehensible feature in the present list is the adoption of 

 Reeve's names in preference to those given by Pfeiffer. The authors argue that 

 Reeve published his names in 1852, and that " Pfeiffer's descriptions probably 

 did not appear till the following year," but as Reeve in his " Conchologia 

 Iconica " quotes Pfeiffer's names, there can be no doubt as to their priority. 

 These changes were made by Reeve because Pfeiffer used the names of letters of 

 the Greek alphabet, which the former considered only applicable to varietal names, 

 but such changes, as Mr. Pilsbry states, " being wholly unwarranted, the 

 propriety of returning to the original Pfeifferian names is now conceded by most 

 students." 



Having made our adverse remarks on these points, we will now turn to the 

 favourable features of the paper. For the general systematic arrangement we 

 have nothing but praise, while the copious references and the complete synonymy, 

 together with the exhaustive and reliable list of habitats, will prove a great boon 

 to collectors, as well as to faunistic compilers. The only clerical error or misprint 

 we have found appears, under Laoma pacilosticta, on p. 646, where Conch, /eon., 

 pi. exxii., should be exxxii. With the exceptions above indicated, the work 

 appears to have been admirably done, and we congratulate the authors on having 

 made an important contribution to conchological literature, and having so 

 satisfactorily performed their difficult task. — G. K. G. 



The Zoological Society informs me that the part in which Pfeiffer's original 

 description appeared was issued in March or April, 1S54, though bearing the date 

 1852. There is, therefore, no question as to priority, and Pfeiffer's names must 

 be given up for Reeve's. Varieties " Beta, Pfr." are mentioned of Rhytida 

 dunneee, &c, Pfeiffer, however, never described such varieties; what he did was 

 to insert after the type "/3" and then a description : the usual process by which 

 a variety is indicated but not named. — E. R. S. 



Hedley, C. — Note on Endodonta infundibulum, If. & J. Naut., 1893, vu -> P- 35- 



E. infundibulum is a var. of ^radata, Gould, not a synonym of crebriflamviis, 

 Pfr.— E. R. S. 



Jousseaume, — . — Descr. d'un Mollusque nouveau. Le Nat., 1893, p. 171. 

 Arabica gillei. 



Kobelt, W. — Die Yerbreitung von Helix arbustoiutm, L. Nachr. Deutsch. 

 Malak. Gesell., 1893, pp. 87-92. 



Pelseneer, P. — La Classification Generale des Mollusques. Bull. Sci. France et 

 Belg., 1892, xxiv., pp. 346-72. 



Prof. Pelseneer discusses the classification of Mollusca, and defends the scheme 

 which he has adopted for his forthcoming "Introduction al' Etude des Mollusques." 

 He again controverts Von Jhering's views upon the polyphyletic nature of the group, 

 and opposes the idea of any direct affinity of the Mollusca with the Turbellaria. 

 On the other hand he argues in favour of a direct phylogenetic relationship of the 

 Mollusca with the errant Polychceta, especially with the family Eunicidre. 

 Pelseneer recognises five great classes, — Amphineura, Gastropoda, Scaphopoda, 

 Lamellibranchia, and Cephalopoda. The arrangement of the Scaphopoda and 



