KENNAED & WOODWARD : NOMENCLATORIAL NOTES. 85 



as a distinct species, followed by CI. duhia, Drap., witli CI. rugosa, 

 C. Pfr., as synonym thereof, but gave no reasons for his procedure: 

 Morch was followed as usual by Westerlund in 1871 (Nova Acta 

 Soc. Sci. Upsala, ser. iii, vol. viii, p. 78). No other authority, not 

 even Boettger (Clausilienstudien, 1877) appears to have given 

 currency to Strom's name. 



Since the original description and figure might equally well apply 

 to such other form as CI. parvula, Studer, it is best discarded. 



The species to which it has been applied will therefore in future 

 be known under Draparnaud's name of CI. rugosa (1801), this having 

 priority over CI. nigricans, Maton & Rackett (Trans. Linn. Soc, viii, 

 1807, p. 180). It has been generally overlooked that Maton and 

 Rackett's citation in synonymy of " Pultney " refers not, as has been 

 assumed, to the original editions of the " Catalogues " (1799), in 

 which the name in question does not appear, but to the then forth- 

 coming second edition in 1813, which Rackett was editing, and for 

 which the plates had been prepared. 



In re Fitzinger. 



An eccentric genius, like Rafinesque, whom he resembled in that 

 some of his work stands, Fitzinger was obviously very careless in 

 the preparation of his manuscript and totally neglectful as regards 

 its printing. How else can the following errors be accounted for 

 in his classical " Systematisches Verzeichniss der in Erzherzog- 

 thume Oesterreich vorkommenden Weichthiere " (Beitr. Landesk. 

 Oesterreich., iii, 1833, pp. 88-122) ? 



Thus at the bottom of^p. 98 we find " Gonyodiscus perspectivus, 

 Mihi " as a new name for Helix perspectiva, Miihlfeld ; H. rotundata, 

 Pfeiffer ; and Helicella rotundata, Fer. ; whilst at the top of the 

 next page we have " Discus rotundatus, Mihi " for Helix rotundata, 

 Argenville & Drap. ; Helicella rotundata, Fer. Granted that he drew 

 a distinction between the Helix rotundata of Pfeiffer and those of 

 Argenville and Draparnaud, he can really not have intended to place 

 the Helicella rotundata, Fer., at one and the same time in two different 

 genera. Is it not rather likely that he wrote Discus at first, and 

 subsequently changed it to Gonyodiscus (which, of course, should be 

 Goniodiscus), making the correction on the first entry and expecting 

 the printer to carry it through, which was not done. 



The next oversight occurs a few lines down. The last entry 

 under Discus being " D. cristallinus, Mihi " for " Helix crystallina, 

 Miiller & Draparnaud ", this is immediately followed by " Vitrea 

 diaphana, Mihi" for "Helix crystallina, Drap.; H. diaphana, 

 Studer ", etc. This second introduction of Draparnaud's species 

 as an equivalent for diaphana is the more amazing since the latter 

 does not occur in France. The two forms crystallina and diaphana 

 are so absolutely inseparable generically and so unlike the other 

 species put under Discus, that the error is obvious. 



