KENNARD & WOODWARD : NOMENCLATORIAL NOTES. 89 



can be explained as follows. The trouble seems to have arisen with 

 Draparnaud, the first after Miiller, we believe, to distinguish the 

 two species, for his " Histoire ", being the first well-illustrated book, 

 was both largely used and followed. 



In his " Tableau " (1801, p. 40) Draparnaud clearly reversed the 

 two species as we now understand them. Not only is this shown 

 by his measurements, but by the statement under Cyclostonia 

 achatinum, "La coquille est . . . plus allongee que la precedente 

 [C. viviparum] ; et la suture de la spire est moins profonde ". 



When he wrote the " Histoire " (1805), however, he would seem 

 from his text to have changed them over just as he did his Helix 

 lucida and H. nitida, for, though the dimensions are omitted and 

 the descrij)tions of the two species annoyingiy vague, he does 

 remark of Cyclostonia vivij)arutn (p. 35) " Spire composee de six 

 tours convexes et tres-distincts ", and of C. achatinum (p. 36) 

 " Spire de 6 tours convexes ; suture tres-marquee ", which clearly 

 points the latter being the Helix fasciata of Miiller. His synonymy, 

 too, bears this out. The figures, on the other hand, which are not 

 cited in the text, are numbered in accordance with the description 

 of the " Tableati ". 



Now seeing that there were errors of lettering on other of the 

 plates, as admitted and blamed to the engraver in the explanation to 

 plate X, and cited in the " errata " for plate v, whilst as pointed out 

 first by Brard (1815) for plate vi (where 12 should be neglecta and 

 16 and 17 should be ericetorum, it does not seem too much to postulate 

 that a similar error was committed in the explanation of plate i, 

 and that the " vivijoarum " to fig. 16 should be exchanged with the 

 " achatinum '^ to fig. 18. This correction effected Draj)arnaud's 

 text and figures become harmonious. 



Except Brard, who failed to differentiate between the two species 

 and did not therefore deal with the question, Draparnaud's 

 successors seem to have overlooked his descriptive text and fastened 

 their attention on his figures. 



Millet (1813) accepted Draparnaud's synonymy, but did not 

 cite his figures, whilst evidently following them as named in the 

 explanation and giving his own amplified and perfectly clear descrip- 

 tions. At the same time, objecting to the trivial name viviparum as 

 not indicating a peculiarity of the species, he proposed instead 

 " contectum ". In the second edition (Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, 

 vi, 1833, p. 134) he adopted Paludina as the generic name for the 

 two species, and abandoning his name of contecta made it a synonym 

 for " P. vivipara, Lam." In the third edition (Aim. Soc. Linn. 

 Maine & Loire, i, 1854, pp. 304-305 [separate pp. 56-57]) he changed 

 the generic name to Vivipara and the specific names to " vulgaris, 

 Lam." and "fasciata ". Since Lamarck did not, so far as ascertained, 

 ever use the name here attributed to him, whilst Dupuy, who follows 

 next in Millet's synonymy, did, we are inclined to believe that the 



