Testacella maugei {Fer.) and T. Iialiotidea [Drap.). 403 



Vol. II., pp. 94, 95, pi. VIII., figs. 10-12), and named it 

 T. maugei, wisely preferring to name the species after its 

 discoverer instead of adopting the name ' haliotoides,' which 

 was not only inconveniently similar to ' haliotidea ,' but had 

 been erroneously applied first to one species and then to 

 another. Ferussac's name would, therefore, appear quite 

 valid, and it has been accepted by nearly all the writers who 

 have dealt with this species.* 



The case of Testacella haliotidea Drap. is more simple. 



In 1801 Draparnaud described the common French species 

 of Testacella, and named it T. haliotidea {Tabl. Moll. France, 

 pp. 99, 100), no specific name having previously been given 

 to this form. There can be no doubt whatever that Drapar- 

 naud 's species was that which is still commonly known as 

 T. haliotidea. In the first place, his original description 

 agrees best with this species. Secondly, Draparnaud described 

 his species from specimens sent to him by M. Faure-Biguet, 

 who not only himself published a description and figures of 

 the slug {Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris, 1802, p. 98, pi. V., 

 figs. A-D), but also sent specimens to Cuvier, who dissected 

 them, and figured their internal anatomy as well as their 

 external characters {Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, Vol. V., 

 pi. XXIX., figs. 6-11 ) . Cuvier's excellent figures, as Kennard 

 and Woodward remark, ' leave no doubt as to the species 

 with which he was dealing.' Thirdly, Draparnaud stated 

 that his T. haliotidea occurred both in the North and in the 

 South of France {Tabl. Moll. France, p. 100), and the speci- 

 mens that Faure-Biguet sent to him were found in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Crest, in the Department of Drome {Hist. Moll. 

 France, Notes by the Editor on p. 152). Testacella maugei, on 

 the other hand, is only found in the extreme West of France, 

 and it was not known to occur even there until man}^ years 

 afterwards, Moquin-Tandon, so late as 1-856, refusing to believe 

 that it was indigenous to the country {Moll. terr. et fktv. de 

 la France, Vol. II., p. 41) ; and Draparnaud himself makes it 

 quite clear that he regarded Mauge's species from Teneriffe as 

 purely exotic, although he fell into the same error as Bosc and 

 de Roissy about Favanne's figures. 



Kennard and Woodward, however, maintain that Drapar- 

 naud 's name, ' being a homonym of Lamarck's, cannot stand.' 

 Now we have already seen that there are good reasons for 

 regarding Lamarck's name as a nomen nudum. And, even if 

 it were not so, T. haliotidea Drap. should not be rejected as 

 a homonym of T. haliotoides Lam. according to the recom- 

 mendations enunciated under Article 36 of the International 



* For a list of the principal references to this species see Anv . Natal 

 Mus., Vol. III., 1915, pp. 2.56-258. 



1921 Dec. 1 



