104 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



I do not propose to use the word hoernesianCt for designating 

 Cyprcea globosa, Duj. 



Gypr^a elongata, Brocchi (1814). 

 This name, given by Brocchi, was preoccupied by Perry (1811, = 

 C. caurica var.). Cyprcea flavicula, Lam. (1810), was identified by 

 Cocconi (1873), Sacco (1894), and CeruUi (1911), who added 

 " elongata ? ". Sacco only used this name for designating the species 

 from the Italian Miocene. Being a species from the French 

 Oligocene, flavicula cannot be identical with elongata. Cossmann 

 (1903) and many previous authors have separated the two. Cypraia 

 suhelongata, Orb. (1852), also scarcely belongs to elongata (cf. Sacco, 

 1894, pp. 21, 31, 32). Therefore Brocchi's species must be changed 

 into Cyprcea longiscata, Mayer (1875, Journ. de Conch., xxiii, p. 66). 



Cypr^a errones, Linnaeus (1758). 

 The name given by Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat., 10th ed., p. 723) 

 is not, as Dunker (1852) believed, a typographical error ; for it 

 is printed in the same way by Linnaeus in 1764 (Mus. Lud. Ulr.) and 

 1767 (Syst. Nat., 12th ed.). If it were only an error, thB name 

 ought to be changed into the more classical form erronea, which 

 name is published for the first time by Miiller (1775, Des C. v. 

 Linne Natursystem, vi) and then bv Born (1780), Schroter (1783), 

 Sowerby (1825), Menke (1843), Morch (1852), Schaufuss (1869), all 

 of whom give erronea specific rank instead of errones. 



Cypr^a exanthema, Linnaeus (1767). 

 Lamarck (1810) recognized that Cyprcea zebra, Linnaeus (1758, 

 Syst. Nat., 10th ed., p. 719), was a young shell of C. exanthema, 

 Linneeus (1767, op. cit., 12th ed., p." 1172), and Hanley (1855) 

 confirmed it. This common West Indian species must therefore be 

 called Cyprcea zebra, Linn. 



Cypr^a fabagina, Lamarck, var. brocchii, Desh. (1844), etc. 



It is obviously permissible to correct the names brochii, Desh. 

 (1844, = fabagina, Lam., va,x.), gratteloupi, Orb. (1852, = 1 flavicula. 

 Lam., var.), SLudorbigniana, Grat. (1845), into brocchii, grateloupi, and 

 orbignyana, i.e. in the same way as these names were written by 

 their owners. Certain writers have already done so, but without 

 drawing attention to their changes. 



Many Latin names as originally given are not strictly correct, 

 and writers from Michelotti (1846) to Vredenburg (1919) on purpose 

 always wrote pirum piriformis instead of pyrum pyriformis. If 

 these philological quibbles are to be upheld, which I do not think 

 should apply to Latin descriptive names, then many other names 

 should be changed, for instance, annulus and annularia into anulus 

 and anularia, etc. ; and perhaps a future writer will discover some 

 new name for this genus. The more correct classical spelling 

 Cypria, as pointed out by JefEreys (1867) and Melvill (1888), has 



