330 Enigmat'ical Names in Conchology (See. 



apparently unknown to Jeffreys, and is unnoticed in tlie 



• ]\Iannal of the MoUusca ' hy Woodward and Tate. In 1859 

 CluMiu's 'Manuel de Conchyliolosie,' vol, i. p. 30t), retains 

 " Risso;i, Fr^minville, 1814," subjoining " Kissoaria, Agassiz, 

 184G," as a synonym. Reference to the work of Agassiz, 



* Nomina systematica Generum Molluscovuni/ edited by 

 Gray, Menke, and Slrickland, reveals the following entries : — 



Rissoa, Frem. Bull. See. Phil. iv. 1814. 

 Eissoaria, Frem. Bull. Sec. Phil. 1814. 

 Pursuing the quest, at p. 7 of the volume indicated we 

 find " Description des Coquilles univalves du genre Rissoa de 

 M. de Freininville ; par M. A.-G. Desmarets," followed by 

 the statement " Ce genre, dont Tcitablissement a ^\€ jug^ 

 n^cessaire par M. 0. de Freminville . . . porte le nom de 

 ]\1. Risso." Then the definition of the genus is given by 

 Anselme Gaetan Desmarets (or Desmarest), to whom, there- 

 fore, the genus should be ascribed, and not to the Baron de 

 Fi^minville, unless the latter did sometliing more than suggest 

 its name. But of llissoaria not the least trace could be 

 found in the volume cited by Agassiz. It is, perhaps, 

 nothing but an ampler emendation in advance of Rissoia. 

 As a matter of curiosity, the treatment of Rissoa by Johannes 

 Gistfl deserves mention. In his ' Naturgeschichte des 

 Thierreichs,' 1848, at p. x he indicates " Rissoa (Frem. 

 Gasterop. R. striattUa, O. Fabr. ; Cliiaje in Memoiie V.; 

 Quoy : Isis 1834) ; Apanthausa, N.'' But on p. 169, after 

 Paludina achatina, he introduces the remark "Hieherdas 

 Genus Melania (dessen Name in Hydrognoma, milii, zii 

 andern) und Rissoa (in Anatasia, mihi, umzuwandeln.'* As 

 between Apanthausa and Anatasia, the latter might well 

 claim ))riority, since it occurs in the body of the work, while 

 Ajianthausa is in the separate pagination of the prefatory 

 portion, which, though first in arrangement, is naturally last 

 in order of production. Tiiat Apanthausa was only a slip of 

 the pen is tlie more likely, as in the ' Handbuch der Natur- 

 geschichte,^ p. 554 (1850), he gives only Anatasia, with no 

 allusion to Ap'inthausa. Whatever the change intended, he 

 evidently feels that it is unnecessary for so eminent a natu- 

 ralist to vindicate or even ex[)lain its necessity. 



W^ilh regard to the Pycnogonida, I find a procedure of my 

 own inculpated (or, at least, lamented) by Dr. Loman in a 

 recent essay, which is on other accounts of much value. But 

 on the point in question he does not seem to me to adopt a 

 sound view. In 'Knowledge,' vol. xxv. no. 202 (1902), at 

 p. 1^7 I pointed out that Latreille in 1804 institut'd the 

 genus Phoxichiius, assigning to it the single species Fycno- 



