4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I25 



in every detail with a related species. Dr. Ball's studies of small 

 species, like those by his confreres, were made with a hand lens 

 whose magnification and shifting focus at that time did not make 

 the detailed comparative study possible. 



It is therefore not surprising that in 1892 scientists did not use 

 the discrimination employed today, and their specific names usually 

 embraced groups rather than species. In this they also were aided 

 by the type of illustrations then used, which were pen or pencil draw- 

 ings whose accuracy depended upon the artist, which easily led the 

 casual observer to believe that he recognized a specimen under ob- 

 servation as that described and named from the other side of the 

 world. Today the camera lens and photogelatine reproduction give 

 us figures that leave no doubt about what an author intends to cover 

 by a specific name and helps to remove misunderstandings and 

 confusion. 



Then, too, in malacology we are adding year by year bits of in- 

 formation about the soft parts of living organisms which greatly 

 help us understand relationships. But here, too, I may add a word of 

 caution. In today's anatomic studies I find that great importance and 

 values are placed upon the features of the reproductive organs. These 

 studies practically always are based upon material taken at the same 

 time. What is badly needed in Mollusca are anatomic studies cover- 

 ing all the different seasons, to note how constant and reliable the 

 features may be upon which we base our classification. 



Not infrequently conchologists are reviled by soft anatomists. To 

 such I would say : Study pyramidellids ; there you will find recorded 

 in the nucleus — the nepionic shell — the early embryonic history, while 

 the rest of the shell carries the story through its various subsequent 

 stages to senescence and death. These are characters that the soft 

 anatomy of no single individual records at one time. Both types of 

 studies are equally important and much needed. 



The nomenclature adopted in 1909 by Dall and Bartsch in Bulle- 

 tin 68, as far as superspecific designations were concerned, was ultra- 

 conservative. At that time we recognized four genera in the family. 

 Under all but one, Murchisonella, a monotypic genus, we placed a 

 host of subgenera and sections. Under the genus Pyramidella we 

 listed 24 subgenera and sections. Under the genus Turbonilla we 

 likewise recognized 24 subgenera and sections, while under the genus 

 Odostomia 41 subgenera and sections are named. To these, others 

 have since been added from various parts of the world. It would 

 have been better, I think, if we had recognized many of our subgeneric 



