﻿216 
  PROCEEDINGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  MA.LACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  them 
  as 
  new 
  genera, 
  giving 
  names 
  to 
  these 
  groups 
  in 
  his 
  MS. 
  He 
  

   was 
  evidently 
  in 
  communication 
  with 
  Lamarck 
  while 
  the 
  latter 
  was 
  

   preparing 
  his 
  Sistoire 
  des 
  Animaux 
  sans 
  Vertehres, 
  for 
  Lamarck 
  refers 
  

   to 
  him 
  in 
  many 
  places, 
  and 
  acknowledges 
  the 
  receipt 
  of 
  many 
  

   specimens 
  from 
  him. 
  

  

  Lamarck's 
  fifth 
  volume 
  of 
  the 
  Histoire, 
  containing 
  the 
  list 
  of 
  

   Conchifera, 
  was 
  published 
  in 
  1818, 
  and 
  he 
  quotes 
  some 
  of 
  Leach's 
  

   manuscript 
  generic 
  names 
  in 
  the 
  synonymy 
  of 
  his 
  species, 
  but 
  without 
  

   adopting 
  them. 
  Thus 
  under 
  his 
  Amphidesma 
  tenuis 
  he 
  quotes 
  " 
  Ahra 
  

   tenuis, 
  Leach" 
  as 
  a 
  synonym, 
  and 
  under 
  Lucina 
  widata 
  (p. 
  543) 
  he 
  

   mentions 
  '■'■ 
  Mysia 
  undata, 
  Leach". 
  

  

  There 
  is, 
  of 
  course, 
  no 
  reference 
  to 
  description 
  or 
  figure 
  after 
  

   Leach's 
  names, 
  because 
  none 
  had 
  been 
  published 
  by 
  Leach. 
  It 
  is 
  

   probable 
  that 
  Lamarck 
  quoted 
  Leach's 
  names 
  because 
  he 
  knew 
  that 
  

   Leach 
  intended 
  to 
  publish 
  them. 
  As 
  a 
  matter 
  of 
  fact 
  they 
  were 
  not 
  

   published 
  in 
  Leach's 
  lifetime, 
  though 
  J. 
  E. 
  Gray 
  states 
  that 
  part 
  of 
  

   the 
  MS. 
  was 
  in 
  print 
  in 
  the 
  year 
  1820. 
  Many 
  years 
  afterwards 
  it 
  

   came 
  into 
  Gray's 
  hands, 
  and 
  he 
  prepared 
  it 
  for 
  publication 
  by 
  Van 
  

   Voorst 
  in 
  1 
  852, 
  under 
  the 
  title 
  of 
  A 
  Synopsis 
  of 
  the 
  Molliisca 
  of 
  Great 
  

   Britain. 
  In 
  this 
  work 
  no 
  such 
  genus 
  as 
  Mysia 
  is 
  mentioned, 
  but 
  on 
  

   p. 
  313 
  a 
  genus 
  Glocomene 
  is 
  described 
  with 
  one 
  species, 
  G. 
  Montaguana, 
  

   of 
  which 
  Tellina 
  rotundata 
  (Mont.) 
  and 
  T. 
  undata 
  (Pult.) 
  are 
  given 
  

   as 
  synonyms 
  ; 
  and 
  there 
  can 
  be 
  no 
  doubt 
  that 
  the 
  T. 
  undata 
  of 
  

   Pulteney 
  was 
  the 
  Venus 
  undata 
  of 
  Pennant. 
  Thus 
  it 
  is 
  evident 
  that 
  

   Leach 
  regarded 
  these 
  two 
  species 
  as 
  identical, 
  but 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  

   abandoned 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Mysia 
  which 
  he 
  had 
  given 
  to 
  Lamarck. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  meantime, 
  however, 
  T. 
  Brown 
  ^ 
  had 
  used 
  the 
  name 
  Mijsia 
  in 
  

   1827. 
  It 
  is 
  clear 
  that 
  Brown 
  had 
  access 
  to 
  Leach's 
  original 
  MS., 
  for 
  

   he 
  quotes 
  it 
  by 
  pages 
  manj^ 
  times, 
  and 
  he 
  adopted 
  some 
  of 
  Leach's 
  

   names. 
  Among 
  others 
  he 
  adopted 
  Mysia, 
  with 
  Tellina 
  rotundata 
  

   (Mont.) 
  as 
  the 
  sole 
  representative 
  of 
  the 
  genus, 
  for 
  though 
  he 
  was 
  

   quite 
  aware 
  that 
  Leach 
  had 
  regarded 
  the 
  Venus 
  undata 
  as 
  a 
  Mysia, 
  he 
  

   chose 
  afterwards 
  to 
  follow 
  Lamarck 
  in 
  placing 
  it 
  under 
  Lucina. 
  

  

  From 
  the 
  above 
  account 
  it 
  will 
  be 
  seen 
  that 
  Brown 
  was 
  the 
  first 
  to 
  

   establish 
  the 
  genus 
  Mysia 
  on 
  a 
  proper 
  basis, 
  adopting 
  it 
  as 
  his 
  own, 
  

   and 
  figuring 
  the 
  shell. 
  In 
  my 
  opinion 
  a 
  generic 
  name 
  ought 
  not 
  to 
  be 
  

   regarded 
  as 
  established 
  by 
  the 
  mere 
  printing 
  of 
  a 
  manuscript 
  name 
  in 
  

   the 
  work 
  of 
  another 
  author, 
  either 
  in 
  the 
  synonymy 
  of 
  a 
  particular 
  

   species, 
  or 
  elsewhere. 
  It 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  hoped 
  that 
  the 
  International 
  

   Commission 
  on 
  Zoological 
  Nomenclature 
  will 
  reconsider 
  their 
  decision 
  

   on 
  this 
  point; 
  meantime 
  I 
  am 
  glad 
  to 
  be 
  able 
  to 
  state 
  that 
  Dr. 
  F. 
  A. 
  

   Bather 
  and 
  Mr. 
  Oldfield 
  Thomas 
  agree 
  with 
  the 
  view 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  

   expressed. 
  

  

  Assuming 
  that 
  this 
  view 
  will 
  be 
  confirmed, 
  I 
  adopt 
  Lu,cinopsis 
  as 
  

   the 
  proper 
  generic 
  name 
  of 
  Venus 
  undata 
  (Pen.) 
  ; 
  and 
  I 
  may 
  here 
  

   remark 
  that 
  the 
  name 
  Mysia 
  will 
  drop 
  out 
  of 
  conchological 
  literature, 
  

   because 
  with 
  slightly 
  different 
  spelling 
  {3fysea) 
  it 
  was 
  used 
  in 
  1820 
  

  

  ' 
  Illusfratioiis 
  of 
  the 
  Recent 
  Conch, 
  of 
  Gt. 
  Britain, 
  pi. 
  xvi, 
  fig. 
  11. 
  

  

  