526 On the proposed rejection o/Cyclostoma. 



Loxoconcha was pi*eviously used for the same organism. 

 Bowerbank, a little later, applying Rule 10, introduces it again 

 for another group. The third occasion cited of its use is not 

 of course difficult to cope with, as it takes its place without 

 any comment in synonymy. Now I ask, if the second 

 Normanta were allowed to stand, what would be the effect 

 if some day the name of Loxoconcha should prove to be pre- 

 occupied ? For it must be remembered that our ordinary 

 channels of information for ascertaining such a point are not 

 yet complete. We have by no means exhausted the litera- 

 ture. Numerous works are gradually coming to light which 

 have hitherto escaped such skilful compilers as Agassiz, 

 Marshall, and Scudder. No doubt to guard against such a 

 contingency as I have hinted at Professor JSollas wisely 

 altered the second Normanta to Pcecillaslra. However 

 grievous such an alteration as this must be to the great 

 naturalist referred to in the name, and while we must admit 

 that Canon Norman's deduction from the latter part of Rule 

 10 seems to have been neglected by Prof. Sollas in making 

 this change, yet it was brought about in accordance with the 

 views held almost universally in other countries, and should 

 consequently be admitted. I therefore maintain that to prevent 

 confusion in the future Prof. Sollas's genus should stand, and 

 that Normanta should be allowed to repose quietly in 

 synonymy until the time comes when it may be called forth 

 to take the place of Loxoconcha. 



I venture to ask Canon Norman if, in the compilation 

 of his " Revision of British Mollusca," published in the 

 1 Annals ' for 1890, where he places under review some 

 seventy or eighty genera and subgenera, he is aware that 

 about a dozen of them are preoccupied names, and whether 

 they remain so in his desire to carry out strictly to the letter 

 his interpretation of the latter portion of Rule 10? 



There is a great work to be done in our conchological 

 nomenclature ; and although much has been effected by con- 

 tinental authors, there still remains a considerable field for 

 action. But if we are to be limited in our adoption of 

 the law of priority we shall have endless confusion and 

 unsatisfactory results. I consider that the importance of 

 this matter deserves attention from the British Association at 

 their next meeting, to settle whether zoological science would 

 not be considerably advanced by the rescinding of the latter 

 part of Rule 10 of the fStricklandian Code, the words of 

 which are " when still retained for such genus or species." 



1 am indebted to my colleagues Messrs. E. A. iSruith and 

 G. A. Boulenger for some useful suggestions in the prepara- 



