O THK NAUTILUS. 



being evidence enough tiiat the former is not generically recognizable. As to the 

 fact that Mr. Cockerell has found a couple of slugs under the name " Limacella 

 lactescens" in the British Museum, which he supposes are the types of Z. lacti- 

 formis, it is absolutely irrelevant to the subject. What evidence is there beyond 

 the merest guess work that they are Blainviile's types? And even if they were 

 (a most improbalile hypothesis !), their mere existence does not constitute /wM^rt- 

 Hon. We have nothing whereby to judge Limacella^2iSt. the original figures and 

 description, and these certainly indicate a type of slug different from Tebetinophorus. 



It may also be noted that the name Limacella is preoccupied, having been used 

 by Brard in 1815. If we care to be really consistent we must use Limacella in 

 place o{ Agriolimax 1 



The second name for the genus is Philomyciis, Bafinesque. This genus, says 

 its author, " differs from Limax by no visible mantle, the longer pair of tentacula 

 terminal and club-shaped, the shorter tentacula lateral and oblong." Rafinesque 

 describes four species and says there are many more in the United States. Not 

 one of those he described has been identified with any certanity, and only two 

 species of Tebennophorus occur in the regions visited by him. Rafinesque also 

 describes the genus Eumeles — " differs from Limax by no visible mantle, the four 

 tentacula almost in one row in front and cylindrical, nearly equal, the smallest 

 pair between the larger ones." Of this genus he describes two species, one of 

 which, E. 7iebulosus, has been recognized by Mr. Cockerell, whose penetration 

 and facilities have enabled him to identify new or old species which have escaped 

 the observation of specialists on the American fauna. 



We will not comment on these Rafinesquian genera ; those who find slugs 

 corresponding to them should of course use the names. Eumeles is especially 

 remarkable, and we would invite the attention of conchologists who hunt slugs 

 (in old collections of museums and elsewhere) to the unusual arrangement of the 

 tentacles in this genus, and to the fact that a number of Rafinesque's species are 

 still at large. 



The genus Meghimatiiim, v. Hasselt, 1824, vi'as founded on a species of this 

 genus from Java, and was quite recognizably described. The names Tebetino- 

 phorus, Binn., and Lncilaria, Benson, were both proposed in 1842. the probable 

 priority being in favour of the first. 



Morse in 1864 established the genus Pallifera for a species with ribbed jaw. 



This review shows that several names for the genus, more or less certainly 

 applying to it, were proposed anterior to 1842, the date of Tebennophorus. Of 

 these names Philomycus and Meghimatium are the only ones available, Eumeles 

 and Limacella being clearly inapplicable. Since continental authors generally 

 have adopted the name Philomycus, it seems advisable to retain that designation 

 for the genus if Tebennophorus must be rejected. 



{To be continued.) 



PRELIMINARY NOTICES OF NEW MEXICAN SHELLS. 



BY H, A. PILSBRY. 



The shells here described were collected by the expedition from 

 the Academy of Natural Science? of Philadelphia, and will be fully 

 described and illustrated in the Proceeding.s of the Academy. 



