OF CONCHOLOGY. 91 



cannot be expected to look for his species in another suborder, 

 of his Hi'ssoa proves to be a Chrysallida, his Modelia a Lacuna, 

 and his Truncatella a Hydrohia, is he entitled to priority if his 

 successor, anxiously desirous to make out his species, has been 

 compelled through necessary ignorance to redescribe ? Very 

 often neither the diagnosis nor the figure represent the real 

 shell. If an author, seeing one object before his eyes, which 

 he calls his type, describes another, and sends a third to the 

 Cumingian collection to represent his species, for which must 

 his name stand ? Does it not really belong to the idea in Ids 

 own mind which is embodied in his diagnosis, or (if an artist) 

 in his figure, rather than to the shell which is not represented 

 by either one or the other? A truthful name therefore, even 

 though second or third in time, may be more useful to science 

 than a false one given first. 



Space only allows us to point out one more difficulty in 

 modern nomenclature. In old times a species (and even a 

 genus) was supposed to be clearly defined. The Darwinian 

 theory offers a satisfactory explanation of some facts in nature, 

 to many who are not prepared fully to accept it. Every 

 worker among large series finds forms which may or may not 

 prove conspecific with others, the evidence not being as yet 

 conclusive; he describes these as doubtful Fvarieties. Does 

 not the careful naming and description of a form establish a 

 claim for priority, whether by succeeding writers that form be 

 regarded as a variety, a species, or even a genus? 



It depends much on habit of mind whether authors prefer 

 to work by large or by minute divisions. When we speak 

 of Callista tindulata^ it is a matter of little consequence 

 whether Callista be regarded as a sub-genus of Gytherea or a 

 separate genus, whether undulata be regarded as a variety of 

 planulata or a distinct species. What is of consequence is, 

 that all the scientific world should have the means of knowing 

 at once what group of forms are included in Callista, what kind 

 of individuals in undulata. First, then, we need accurate des- 

 criptions, then these descriptions condensed into useful nomen- 

 clature. Science being a republic, there is no chance of even 

 the forthcoming Eules of the British Association beins; con- 

 sidered obligatory. But many persons who will not allow 

 themselves to be ruled, against what they consider a princi- 

 ple, may yet be brought to make concessions. The Academi- 

 cians had great success in fixing the French language. Why 

 should there not be a congress of malacological authors* un- 

 dertaken in a spirit of mutual respect, who should fix such 

 names to existing genera as in each case should prove most 



* This was proposed, for naturalists ia general, by Dr. Stimpson: vide 

 'Silliman's Journal,' for March, 1860, pp. 289-293. 



