2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 82 



pp. 47-8), citation has since been made from it, but it still remains 

 inaccessible to most, so that the accompanying list of Children's 

 " types ", omitting such forms as are now no longer included in the 

 mollusca, should be of service to malacologists in general. At the 

 same time it has seemed desirable to indicate those cases in which 

 these " types " cannot be accepted in view of the International Rules 

 of Zoological Nomenclature. 



Children does not appear to have referred to the three French 

 works of earlier date which had direct bearing on his own, namely : 

 Lamarck's " Prodrome ", Lamarck's " Systcme " and Montfort's 

 " Conchyliologie." Nor does he allude to Fleming's articles on " Con- 

 chology " and " Mollusca ". 



The modern conception of a " type " has been rather a matter 

 of growth.' Certainly Lamarck in both his " Prodrome " and his 

 " Systeme " had no intention of doing more than cite examples, for 

 in the former he states " je me borne . . . a la citation d'une seule 

 espece du chacque genre, afin de me faire mieux entendre," and in the 

 latter " j'ai cite sous chacqun d'eux [the generajune espece connue 

 . . . et j'y ai joint quelques synonymes que je puis certifier; cela 

 suffit pour me faire entendre ". This is further borne out by the 

 frequency with which Lamarck changed his examples.' At the same 

 time where in these two works a new genus is proposed (or taken 

 over from Bruguiere not then having a named species attached) 

 Lamarck's example, under the Rules, ranks as a genotype. 



Montfort described each sole species cited under his genera as 

 ** Espece servant de type au genre " and although not exactly a 

 definite statement nevertheless these are " types " in the modern sense. 

 Fleming seems to have been the first to definitely name " types ". 

 Unfortunately he was spasmodic in so doing.' 



As customary at the time specific names were not regarded as 

 sacrosanct, and Lamarck frequently changed them, not merely to 

 avoid tautology when raising a specific name to generic rank, or when 

 transferring a species to a new genus, but frequently (whether one 

 of his own or some other writer) for no obvious reason. Fleming 

 tilts at this (Molluscous Animals, 1837, p. 78) when discussing a new 



* C/. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., Vol. XV, p. 47, 1922. 



* Opinion 79 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 

 that " ' Rigidlj' construed,' Lamarck's (1801 A) Systeme des Animaux sans 

 Vertebres is not to be accepted as designation of type species." 



" See R. Winckworth : Notes on nomenclature. 3 : Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., 

 Vol. XVIII, pp. 224-228, 1919. 



