OP CONCnOLOGY. 89 



No. 79, July, 1864. 



Outlines of the Geology of the Maltese Islands, xoith descrip- 

 tions of the Brachiopods : by thos. Davidson. 



Diagnoses of new Fo7-ms of Molliisca, from Gape St. Lucas, 

 (&c., continued: by p. p. carpenter. 



Mangelia subdiaphana. Opalia crenatoides. 



Drillia appressa. Truncaria eurytoides. 



Githara fusconotata. Sistrum rufonoiatum. 



Oheliscvs variegatus. Nitidella millepunctata. 

 Odostomia sequisculpta. " densilineata. 



" dellcatula. Anachis tincta. 

 Ghrysallida angusta. " fuscostrigata. 



Eulima fuscostrigata. Pisania elata. 



No. 80, August, 1864. 



On a new British Species of Bissoa: by e. waller. 



JRissoa Jeffrey si. 



On the Present State of Malacological Nomenclature : by p. 



p. CARPENTER. 



"We republish this article: — 



" At a time when the British Association are about to revise 

 their 'Rules,' it may be worth while to collect the experience 

 of workers in different branches of science. r 



The nomenclature of Mollusca is not only in a most unset- 

 tled condition, but tliere seems no hope of bringing leading 

 writers to an agreement on any first principles. Dr. Gray, 

 whose contributions to malacology are second to none, and 

 whose position at the head of the department in the British 

 Museum would alone give the greatest weight to his example, 

 has S3^stematically ignored the principles on which the British 

 Association Rules are based. The Messrs. Adams in England, 

 Morch in Copenhagen, many of the German and most of the 

 rising American naturalists take the same course. In Fi'ance 

 the influence of Lamarck has restrained the modern antiqua- 

 rian innovation. 



Existing writers may be divided into two classes — (1) those 

 who profess the absolute law of priority, and (2) those who 

 accept it with limitations. 



The advocates of ' mere priority' claim that their rule is the 

 only one which admits of fixed application. It is granted that, 

 if limitations are once allowed, there will be differences of 

 opinion as to their amount: but does the refusal of limitations 

 produce uniformity ? Putting aside the variations of opinion 

 as to the greater or less division of genera, how can authors be 

 brought to agree as to wherein the naming of a form consists? 

 Those who compare Dr. Gray's 'Guide' with Adams' 'Genera,' 



