78 Bibliographical Notices. 



Names in use. Names proposed by Messrs. Adams. 



Delphinula, Lam. 1803. Angaria, Bolten {Cricostoma, KL). 



Punctm-ella, Lowe, 1827. Cemoria, " Leach " (Sw. 1840). 



Parmophorus, Bl. 1817. Scutus, Montf. 1810. 



Acmaea, Esch. 1833. Tectura, And. & M.-E. (not defined). 



Tornatella, Lam. 1812. Action, Montf. 1810 {Solidula, Fisch.). 



Doridium, Meckel. Aglaia, Renieri. 



Umbrella, Lam. 1812. " Operculatum Iteve," Mus. Tessin. 



Goniodoris, Forbes. Doriprismatica, D'Orb. (" voc. pravum," 



Herrm.). 



Antiopa, A. & H. Janus, Verany. 



Embletonia, A. & H. Cloelia, Loven (not the same thing). 



Firola, Brug. 1 792. Pterotrachea, Forsk. 



Auricula, Lam. 1799. EUobium, Bolten {Auris-Midce, KL). 



The names thus introduced by the authors are of three kinds : — 

 some are taken from works published before the time of Linnaeus ; 

 others were never characterized, and come under the denomination 

 of " MS. names ;" while a few were published under peculiar circum- 

 stances, so as to escape observation, and have become obsolete. 



With respect to pre-Linnsean names it is unnecessary for us to ad- 

 vocate the practice adopted by all the best naturalists ; we will only 

 hint the extreme inconvenience of a nomenclature ever liable to 

 change, and ever receding into the obscurity of olden literature. If 

 the names of Klein are to be adopted, why not those of Langius, and 

 Davila, and Breynius, Bonanni, and Petiver ? x\nd if some of Klein's 

 names are used, why not all? — " Cornu-hammonis " for Spirula, 

 "Dontostoma" for Nerita, "Auris" iox Haliotis, "Hamus" for 

 Tectaria, and " Auricula " for Limncea 1 If Pentadactyliis and Argo- 

 Buccinum are to be introduced, why not also Cophinosalpinx and 

 Auris-Midce, Sacciis and Radix-B?yonicp, Garagoi and Solen-miguinusi 

 Have not these also " priority" ? And why is " Catinus-lactis," Klein, 

 to be changed to Catinus, since euphony and taste are not to be con- 

 sidered ? The folly of using " Dactylus, Klein," for the olive-shells 

 is conspicuous, because the Dactylus, or date-shell, of all the other 

 old writers is that burrowing bivalve the Lithodomus. 



The question of manuscript names is more difficult, owing to the 

 wilfulness of authors. One says it is sufficient to write a new generic 

 name on a tablet and shut it up in his cabinet, — it is to be dated from 

 that act*. Another distinguished Professor, of an English Univer- 

 sity, holds that to inscribe the name on a Museum specimen is a suf- 

 ficient act of publication, leaving the determination of the date to the 

 memory of the Curator. Some consider the insertion of a new generic 

 name in a catalogue, without a word of description, without even a 

 specific name attached, is sufficient to give " priority." Others, 

 more modestly, admit the desirableness of the addition of a known 

 specific name, but do not consider any description necessary ; any one 

 that pleases may find out the characters of the new genus, and if it 

 has none, it is but one more name added to the synonymy. There 



* Introduction to D'Orbigny's ' Prodrome de Paleontologie.' 



