122 Dr. O. V. ^MilllcuJorft' o/j some 



I hope soon to be able to prove that Pyramiduhi rupeatria 

 is not a Patula, perhaps not even a member of the Ilolicidaj 

 at all. Is it not premature to place such an aberrant <^roup 

 at the head of a ^jenus before it is anatomically known, and 

 to change a ■well-established name before the necessity is 

 proved beyond doubt ? I may repeat here that I suspect 

 analogous cases in Ganesella — Safsumaj CepoUs, and others. 

 The soft parts of the true Ganesella have not been examined, 

 and I am all but sure that it belongs to the Eulotid.'c, not to 

 the Saisuma stock. Now Pilsbry's " G'lnesella " is based 

 upon the anatomy of Satsuma japonica^ and it wonld have 

 been more prudent to retain the name Satsuma until it was 

 proved that Ganesella really belongs to the same genus. 



I slill think that page-priority in the case of two or move 

 names for a group in one and the same book should not be 

 recognized, inasmuch as the whole work is made puhlici juris 

 absolutely at the same time, and I still believe there will 

 always be a scientific reason for selecting one of them. How- 

 ever, these cases are so rare that it is hardly worth while to 

 discuss them. 



My proposition no. (3) has not been discussed by Pilsbry 

 at all, probably because he did not understand the German 

 text. As I consider it rather an important one, the accepta- 

 tion of which would settle a number of these vexed questions, 

 I repeat the gist of it here. I proposed that one of tiie older 

 sectional or subgeneric names, which are generally published 

 without description or even naming of a type, should only 

 retain priority if the author who first scientitieally defined the 

 genus fo be named has chosen such name for designation of 

 his genus. In other words, the ])riority dates only from the 

 moment when the genus was properly described. I think 

 ] ilsbry will agree with me that Jieither lacosta, Gray, nor 

 Jlelicellti, Risso, nor Xerophila^ Held, have any claim upon 

 having been scientifically defined by their authors; and I 

 should have no objection to call the genus HcUcella (Uisso), 

 Pilsbry, if Pilsbry had been the first to describe it j)roperly. 

 'J hat is, however, not the case. Ihering did it before him 

 (185>2), and selected Xe.rophila as its name. If my proposed 

 rule was accepted, then we might continue to call the genus 

 Xirojihila (Held) Ihering. The same reasoning would 

 ajjplv fo Cam/ii/laa (Beck) Ihering. Of course this rule 

 could only be followed in cases where there are no other rules 

 of nomenclature in the way. E. g-, J)orcasia, Gray, was 

 expressly named for D. AUxandri; and as I)orcasia, Ihering, 

 does not contain that sj)ecies, we cannot replace Eulota 

 (Ilartm.), Pilsbry, by Dorcasia, Ihcr., although Ihering was 



