N^uines in ConchoJogy and Pycnogonolojy. 329 



writings it is that contains tlie name in question. Autliors in 

 general liave adopted Neritina, Lamarck, 1822^ ignoring the 

 claim of Tkeodoxus, de Montfort, 1810. Gistel, in his part 

 ot" the ' Handbuch der Naturgeschichte,' p. 553 (1850), after 

 his lordly fashion, without vouchsafing any reason tor the 

 change, writes " Chernites, Nob. — Der Autoren Neritina.'' 



Leaving the elusive Xeritine to its fate, I turn to the 

 generic name Panope, familiar to carcinologists through its 

 adoption l)y Leach for a genus which had already been named 

 Ctjamus by Latreille in 1796. Its use in conchology was 

 precluded, unless that use antedated Leach's amphipod genus 

 so named in 1813. Lamarck, indeed, refers in French to 

 " Les Panopes^' in 1807, but he is evidently alluding to the 

 genus Panopea established earlier in the same year by Menard 

 de la Groye, also in the Annales du Mas., Paris. Researches 

 are a little complicated, seeing that Scudder, ' Xomenclator 

 Zoologicus/ p. 231, gives '•' Panopsea Men. Moll. 1807. A." 

 and "Panopea Men. Moll. 1807. S.," but in the Supple- 

 mental Lidex '"Panopea Menetries. Ann. Mus. ix, p. 135. 

 1807. Moll., Biv." — the last a useful reference but with tlie 

 regrettable introduction of the name Menetries in place of 

 Menard de la Groye. It is due^ however, to J. Gwyn 

 Jeffreys to say that in 1865, in his ' British Conchology/ 

 voL iii. p. 75, he protested against the several variations of 

 the name as opposed to " the original and correct one," 

 Panopea, which he himself had given. Nevertheless, in his 

 tiftli volume, p. 192 (1869), he refers to vol. iii. p. 74, the 

 following supplemental remaik, " Panopea. Panope, Men.," 

 probably by his Panope only intending to give the French 

 form of Panopea, but, if so, giving it wrongly, since de la 

 Groye's Frencii version of the name is Panopee. It is 

 possible that Jeffreys may have been misunderstood as giving 

 Panope for a correction of his earlier Panopea. 



The case of Rissoa is at first sight rather less simple. 

 Being surprised by the change of so familiar a name into 

 Rissoia, I desired to learn the reason for the alteration. An 

 early work on natural history by Risso is dated 1810. The 

 genus Rissoa was named after him in 1814. It did not seem 

 probable that tiie name was void in conchology through any 

 earlier use of it, nor has any such use been suggested. It 

 appears thatBronn, in 1849, by way of emeudatiun introduced 

 the form Rissoia, without understanding that he was thereby 

 creating a new generic name. It was adopted by Fischer 

 ('.Manuel de Oonchyliologie,' 1881-1887), in which, at 

 p. 720, he records " Kissoia, Freniinvillc, em. 1814 [Rissoa), 

 synonjmie, Cingula (Fleming, 1828).'^ Tlie emendation was 



Ann. (£• Mag. S, Hist. Ser. 8. Vol xvi. 23 



