Questions of Malacological Nomenclature. 121 



to correct some of the mistakes probably due to erroneous 

 translation. 



Pilsbry makes me say that the principle of selecting the 

 olclest-publislied sectional for a generic name is to be discarded 

 if the oldest group-name is based upon an extreme form of 

 the genus. 1 said, however, distinctly that I propose to 

 reject such name if it expresses or signifies (" bezeichnet ") 

 an extreme or aberrant development of the shell which is not 

 a generic character and does not exist in the other sections of 

 the genus. That is to say, I reject such name or designation 

 on linguistic grounds. I still think it absurd that a genus 

 containing almost exclusively fiat shells should be called 

 " Pi/rainidula,^^ or that rounded 6\\(A\s should be designated as 

 JJe/icigona, or that sliells without any irregularities should be 

 compared to the humpbacked Theraites. It seems to me that 

 so long as we adhere to classical languages as the sources of 

 our nomenclature we should aim at grammatical correctness 

 and logical signiHcaiion of the names, which should not be, 

 as Pilsbry himself happily expresses it, " senseless in meaning 

 and hideous in etymology." This objection to certain 

 names on linguistic grounds will not open the door to endless 

 discussion, as Pilsbry fears, if we make it a rule that generic 

 names designaiing an aberrant character which does not exist 

 in the other members of the genus, such designation being 

 contrary to the type of the genus, should be discarded. I 

 cannot imagine a case where this principle could give oppor- 

 tunity for individual differences of opinion, a very modest 

 knowledge of Latin or Greek being sufficient to decide 

 whether the signification of the name is contradictory to the 

 diagnosis of the genus or not. 



Pilsbry giants the force of my objection that if is premature 

 to follow the strict rule of priority when tiie earliest name 

 was based upon a species not positively known to belong to 

 the genus for which it is selected ; but he does not mention 

 the case in which he hasalieady been misled by not following 

 this rule. Replacing Uyalinia, Agass., by Vttrea, Fitz., 

 without knowing the anatomy of the type of the latter, he 

 has led himself and those who tollow him, " a blind leader of 

 the blind, into a quagmire"*. The true Viireu, Fitz., is, 

 according to lliering, generically different from Hijaliuia, so 

 that we have to change Vitrea, Pilsbry (non Fitz.), back 

 again into Ilyaliniaj unless some other alleged prior na:ne is 

 discovered. 



• I use his own words, which he employed against Boettger and 

 others, and remind him of a good (Tennau proverb — "ile who dwells iu 

 a glass house should heware (vf throwing stoue.s.'' 



