262 BULLETIN OF THE 
G. cerina was his first species ; that a species altogether similar was cited as an 
example by the brothers Adams in their revision of the genera of recent Mol- 
lusca and adopted as a type by Stoliczka ; that the only other reviser of the 
genus, Dr. Carpenter, took a similar view, and postulated the elimination of 
the incongruous element of the genus typified by Prof. Adams’s second species; 
that a group admitted by all to be separable from the genus Circe (in a sec- 
tional or subgeneric sense at least capable of retaining a name) had been sepa- 
rated by Morch under the name of Lioconcha and generally adopted; that 
this group Lioconcha was essentially similar to Gouldia as revised by H. & A. 
Adams, Stoliczka, and Carpenter; that Gouldia, having been properly de- 
fined by Prof. Adams some eight years before the publication of Morch’s unde- 
fined name, was therefore entitled by all the laws and usage of biological 
nomenclature to take precedence of Lioconcha if they be considered (as they 
are) practically synonymous. I referred to Gouldia as a genus, a proceed- 
ing which my friend Smith of the British Museum has objected to in a 
lively manner, and which, after due consideration, I do not feel disposed to in- 
sist upon. The group is closely related to Circe, as typified by C. scripta and 
C. divaricata. The differences in the soft parts are, that in Circe proper the 
narrow branchie hang between the dome of the shell and the adductor, while 
in Gouldia cerina they are suspended between the two adductors; also that 
Circe has short but distinct siphons, while in Gouldia there are only orifices 
between which the mantle edge is tacked together. These characters, like the 
conchological ones, are evident enough, but probably in a long series of species 
would pass by insensible degrees from one to another. But the general ac- 
ceptance which Gouldia has received under the name of Lioconcha indicates 
sufficiently that it represents for the majority an assemblage of characters 
sufficiently recognizable. The value of the group, as in other cases, will de- 
pend upon the view of the individual naturalist. I shall be quite content to 
regard it as merely a subgenus. But Mr. Smith would go further, and, dis- 
regarding the work of the revisers and the obligations of the nomenclature, 
would overthrow Gouldia altogether by a plan which would practically result 
in putting an undefined subsequent name in the place of a properly defined 
prior one. In this I cannot follow him. In the case of a compound genus 
not revised by its author, it is a sound rule to hold by the revision of the first 
reviser, when not on other grounds objectionable. As to following the work- 
ings of an author's mind beyond the point where he has seen fit to publish 
them, I think it will be as well to wait until the theosophists have their 
machinery in better working order. 
Some other notes on this subject will be found under the head of Crassatella, 
As to the place which Circe should occupy, I naturally was disposed to 
accept without question the views of M. Deshayes, who has studied the Pele- 
cypoda so long and well. But on examining the soft parts of Circe I found my- 
self obliged to differ from his verdict that they were essentially those of Meretriz. 
On the other hand they are quite as near Astarte, if not closer, and the shell 
