lEEDALE : MOLLUSCAN NOMENCLATUKAL PEOBLEMS. II. 207 



It is somewhat obvious that Adanson's shell is the same as Quoy 

 and Gaimaid's, and it is interesting to find confirmatory evidence 

 as follows : In the " Journ. de Conch.", vol. xi, 1863. M. Petit de la 

 Saussaye, commenting upon a Catalogue of the Marine Mollusca of 

 Algeria by Weinkauff, wrote (p. 142) : — " Siphonaria striatocostata. 

 M. Philippi a decrit sous ce nom une Siphonarie de la cote du 

 Senegal, qui nous parait etre le Mouret d'Adanson, dont le S. Algesirce 

 de M. Quoy pourrait bien n'etre qu'une variete." On p. 233 

 Weinkaulf pointed out that it was not Philippi but Dunker, " Index 

 Molluscoium," etc., pi. 1, fig. 1-6, who had named the shell, but 

 did not discuss the identification. Recently Dautzenberg (" Mem. 

 Soc. Zool. France ", vol. iii {ante 30th July), 1890, reporting upon 

 Senegal molluscs, included (p. 164) "Siphonaria algesirce, Quoy & 

 Gaimard = ? Mouret Adanson, Dakar ! abondant." 



The identification can scarcely be doubted, but Menke, in the 

 " Zeitschr. f iir Malak ", x, 1853, dealing with West Indian shells, has 

 recorded (p. 68) that Siphonaria mouret, Sowerby is Patella grisea, 

 Gmelin n. 188, based on Adanson's Mouret, and this is correct, so 

 that Patella grisea, Gmelin, "Syst. Nat.," i, pt. 6, 1791, p. 3727, 

 No. 188, is available, and consequently the shell here treated should 

 be called Siphonaria grisea (Gmelin, 1791). Reeve described 

 Siphonaria venosa (Conch. Icon., pi. iii, sp. 10, f. 10a, h, March, 

 1856), from the Cape Coast, and Reeve's type seems to be simply a 

 monstrosity of this species. 



It is possible that this species is subgenerically separable from 

 typical Siphonaria, in which case Mouretus must be used. Nobre 

 in the " Journ. de Conch.", 3rd series, vol. xxvi, 1886, p. 32 

 (received B.M. 8th June, 1886), indeed introduced Patellopsis as a 

 new subgenus for this shell, but Mouretus must be used instead. 



Crass ATELLiTES. 



This name has been used in recent conchological science as a valid 

 substitute for Crassatella. The latter name M^as proposed for one 

 group and used for a different one. The misusage has been 

 corrected (!) by the acceptance of the above name, but further 

 consideration seems necessary. Upon looking into the question, 1 

 found this name to be simply one of a very long series of names 

 proposed simply as substitute names for fossil representatives of 

 recent genera. Should they be regarded as such, or should they be 

 restricted to fossil shells ? Upon referring to Sherborn's " Index 

 Animalium ", such names will be found recorded as occurring as 

 early as 1759, and these have been here ignored. 



Schlottheim in the " Taschenb. Mineral " (Leonhard) 17th year, 

 1813 (pref. dated Easter, 1813), includes over thirty, of which I 

 merely cite Jfautilites, Helicites, Turbinites, Patellites, Chamites, 

 Donacites, Anomites, Bu^cinites, Ostracites, Trochilites, Venulites, 

 Dentalites, Muricites, Bullites, Pectinites, Pinnites, Tellinites, 



