Remarks on the genus Melampus. 295 



ricida as clearly belongs to those shells which were its original typical 

 species, as that of Melampus does to the shells here associated under it, 

 and must stand or fall with them. Yet it may be said, take away these 

 two species, and this genus Melampus is identical with Auricula, F6- 

 russ.* Be it so ; but on the other hand, be it remembered, that Auri- 

 cula Myosotis (at best only a doubtful species) will then be the only spe- 

 cies left which was included in the genus Auricula by its founder, La- 

 marck ; and even this, a species perhaps scarcely contemplated by him 

 at all in its original formation, as he clearly meant Aur. Midee and JudcB 

 to be its typical species ; while Melampus, i. e. Conovulus, Lam., has a 

 much more extensive claim over the remaining species. Besides, it is 

 the claim of Auricula of Lamarck, be it recollected, not that of Auri- 

 cula of Fcrussac, which is the subject of discussion. The former should 

 clearly go along with the shells contemplated by Lamarck ; the latter 

 must, at present, yield precedence to the prior claim of Melampus of 

 Montfort. I say at present ; for if (though I think it improbable from 

 the presence of an epidermis on the shells, and other circumstances) the 

 animals oi Aur. Midce and Jtidce should be found hereafter perfectly iden- 

 tical vfith those of this genus, T shall then be quite willing to allow the 

 prior claim o^ Auricula to the name here adopted. 



It may be farther objected, that there is still a want of evidence to 

 prove the coincidence of the generic group above defined with De Mont- 

 fort's Melampus, since its characters are drawn up from two species 

 never contemplated by him. Yet, if all reliance on the similarity of 

 shells as affording grounds for generic association, be not altogether given 

 up, there can be no doubt that his Melampus coniformis belongs to the 

 same genus as Mel. exiguus of this paper, and therefore as Mel. cequalis. 

 It is an additional argument for their generic affinity, that De Montfort 

 says positively, (and in the face too of Bruguiere, who, according to 

 Ferussac, believed it fluviatile) " Ce MoUusque est marin, il vit sur les 

 " cotes de Cayenne, et principalement contre le rocher du Connetable 

 " qui est en avant de la rade." Conchyl. Syst. II., p. 320. 



To return from this digression ; any thing indeed but a brief one. 



* M. le Baron de Ferussac himself originally distinguished " les Conovules 

 " de M. de Lamarck" (our Meiampodes) from " les vraies Auricules." See 

 Tabl. Syst. des Limajons, p. 14. 



u2 



