1862. ] MR. W. H. PEASE ON TWO NEW HELICTERES. 5 
Férussac gives a monograph of the genus also under the name of 
Helicter, correcting the synonomy of the original species by Chem- 
nitz, and adding two more from the collection of Quoy and Gaimard. 
In the year 1827 two of the above species were redescribed by Dr. 
Green in the ‘ Collection of the Maclurian Lyceum,’ Phil. U.S. 
In the ‘ Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and Art of the 
Royal Institution of Great Britain’ for the year 1828, Mr. Swainson 
published descriptions of seven species, one of which was a synonym 
of the original species by Chemnitz, and one of a species by Férussac. 
He also defines their generic character, and establishes the genus 
Achatinella. No reference is made to previously described species, 
excepting that by Dixon and the “ seminigra »? of Lamarck, which 
he adopts as the type of his genus. His descriptions are introduced 
by a few remarks on the difficulty of determining generic characters 
from shells alone, and he reflects on continental authors for not adopt- 
ing a more artificial system. He refers to the genus Helix as an 
example. We quote his words:—‘“The truth of these remarks will ap- 
pear very obvious on looking to the genus Heliz, as it was left by 
Linnzus, and as it was considered only a few years back, when the 
French writers still considered it only in the light of a genus, con- 
taining many hundreds of species. * * * The peculiar views of 
M. Férussac led him, in the first instance, to return to the old ar- 
rangement, so far as to consider these shells merely as a genus 
divided into subgenera, sections, &e. This view, however, he seems 
at length to have gradually abandoned, and virtually to admit, what 
indeed is quite obvious, that they constitute a family, and a very 
extensive one, comprising numerous minor groups or genera, many of 
which rest on striking dissimilarities in their animals, and all on 
certain and obvious characters in the shell.” * * * * ‘To charac- 
terize a new form, and to give it a name, is no longer looked upon 
as a dangerous innovation.” Mr. Swainson appears to have carried 
out this idea in his latest systematic work on shells (‘Treatise on 
Malacology’ ), as he there arranges the Testaceous Gasteropods under 
360 genera and subgenera, 161 of which are his own. 
H. and A. Adams (who cannot be accused of restricting the num- 
ber of genera) reduce about seventy-two of them to the rank of 
synonyms. 
In his latest work Mr. Swainson does not refer to the genus He- 
licter, but merely remarks that “we adopt M. Férussac’s names 
whenever they have a right to priority, and are classical.” 
In the January number of the ‘ Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles,’ 
of the following year (1829), M. Férussac published a rejoinder to 
the above article by Mr. Swainson, and claimed priority for his 
genus Helicter. We quote his words:—‘‘ Nous croyons devoir 
rappeler & M. Swainson que la gloire ne s’acquiert pas en donnant 
des noms nouveaux que personne ne respecte quand ils sont donnés 
sans motifs, mais en établissant des coupes fondées sur des caractéres 
bien observés et réellement distinctifs, en saisissant les véritables rap- 
ports naturels des étres, et en respectant ces rapports dans l’établis- 
sement des coupes de tous les degrés; nous ajouterons que, pour 
