136 M. 0. A. L. Morch on Conchulogical Nomenclature. 



regarded as the type ; and this view appears generally to be the 

 most natural. Linnaeus directs that, if a genus must be divided^ 

 the most common species shall preserve the old name. This course 

 can scarcely, in the present day, be considered as very scientific. 

 The author who establishes a genus alone has the right to decide 

 which species he wishes to be regarded as the type, and to in- 

 terpret the meaning of his generic name. In such authors as 

 Klein and Hill, who illustrated their genera by figures, it is 

 most natural to regard the species selected for illustration as 

 the type. In Adanson, the species which bears the same name 

 as the genus must be regarded as the type. It is thus erroneous 

 for an author to consider Fossar to be the type of the genus 

 Natica, because it is the first in order and the only one of which 

 the animal is described. On the contrary, the second species, 

 la Natice, must be regarded as the type. Thus of Haliotis, 

 VOrmier is the type; of Yetus, Yet; oi Par cell ana, Porcellaine ; 

 of Cerithium, Cerite ; of Vermetus, Vermet. If no species is 

 named in the genus, it is because none is found in Senegal. 



What is required for a generic name ? — Linnseus gives many 

 rules for the correct application of names, but the only condition 

 he imposes is that the name shall be a single word of Latinized 

 form, and not composed of two distinct terms, as Padix BvTjonia, 

 Solen anguinus. Earbaric words are admitted as generic names, 

 as Coffea, Thca, Chara, Pothos, Jambolifera ; and why not also 

 retain hybrid names, of which the Latin language itself affords 

 many examples ? It is then unnecessary to change Cirroteuthis 

 to Bostrychofeutlds or Sciadephorus. Nearly all the genera 

 adopted by Linnfeus are in opposition to his own rules, as Conus, 

 Mactra, Venus, TrucJms, Turbo, Area, Buccininn, Patella, &c., 

 because Linnreus considered the historical right of a name to be 

 of greater importance than the correctness of its formation, — 

 not, however, in justice to the author, but to history, for Linnaeus 

 never added the author's name. 



On the Genera of Klein. — Lang was the first (1722) who pro- 

 duced a systematic jVIanual of Conchology, divided into genera 

 which ap])roach nearly to those of Linnaeus at present in use ; 

 but, unfortunately, most of his names were composed of two 

 words, and cannot therefore be recognized by naturalists of the 

 Linnsean school. Fischer of Konigsbcrg, in 1732, published a 

 revised system with an improved nomenclature ; and a list of the 

 names appeared in Klein's 'Echinodcrmata,' in 1733. The 

 descriptions were first published by Klein in 1752, who must, 

 however, be regarded only as the editor and commentator, as 

 appears by the introduction. If we take into consideration that 

 Klein's * Tentamen Methodi Ostracologicae ' was published at 

 the time when Linnteus divided all univalve shells into five 



