﻿JUKES-BKOWNE 
  : 
  ON 
  NOMENCLATUEE 
  OF 
  VENERID^. 
  249 
  

  

  elimination 
  of 
  species 
  in 
  order 
  of 
  tlieir 
  separation 
  from 
  the 
  original 
  

   genus 
  should 
  be 
  made 
  a 
  rule, 
  and 
  not 
  merely 
  a 
  'recommendation'. 
  

   I 
  hold 
  that 
  V. 
  ala-avis 
  is 
  the 
  only 
  proper 
  type 
  of 
  Bolten's 
  Paphia, 
  and 
  

   that 
  the 
  name 
  Tapes 
  has 
  been 
  wronglj- 
  displaced 
  by 
  Dr. 
  Dall. 
  

  

  Pectunculus, 
  Da 
  Costa. 
  

  

  The 
  name 
  Pectimcuhis 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  oldest 
  names 
  which 
  have 
  been 
  

   applied 
  to 
  shells, 
  and 
  the 
  most 
  ancient 
  use 
  of 
  it 
  (by 
  Lister 
  in 
  1685) 
  was 
  

   for 
  the 
  Chama 
  gh/cimeris 
  of 
  Belon, 
  which 
  was 
  called 
  Area 
  glycimeris 
  by 
  

   Linnaeus 
  and 
  Pectuncuhis 
  pilosus 
  by 
  Lamai'ck 
  in 
  1799. 
  The 
  general 
  

   adoption 
  of 
  the 
  Lamarckian 
  nomenclature 
  secured 
  a 
  long 
  continuance 
  

   for 
  the 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  name 
  to 
  the 
  Ai-ca 
  glyciniens 
  group, 
  but 
  when 
  

   a 
  more 
  strict 
  observance 
  of 
  priority 
  came 
  into 
  vogue 
  the 
  name 
  Axincea 
  

   (Poli, 
  1777) 
  was 
  used 
  hj 
  some 
  for 
  this 
  group. 
  Eventually, 
  however, 
  

   Dr. 
  Dall, 
  rejecting 
  Poll's 
  names, 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  Da 
  Costa 
  had 
  

   described 
  this 
  group 
  in 
  1778 
  under 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Glycimeris, 
  which 
  

   consequently 
  shouhl 
  take 
  the 
  ]ilace 
  of 
  Lamarck's 
  Pectunculus. 
  

  

  Unfortunately 
  Da 
  Costa 
  had 
  also 
  used 
  the 
  name 
  Pectunculus, 
  

   employing 
  it 
  for 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  British 
  shells 
  which 
  Linnaeus 
  has 
  placed 
  

   in 
  his 
  Venus 
  group. 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  see 
  how 
  the 
  recognition 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  

   Pectunculus 
  can 
  be 
  avoided, 
  for 
  the 
  nomenclature 
  in 
  his 
  British 
  

   Conchology 
  of 
  1778 
  is 
  unquestionably 
  binomial; 
  he 
  clearly 
  defines 
  

   liis 
  genus, 
  and 
  then 
  describes 
  the 
  species 
  which 
  he 
  assigns 
  to 
  it, 
  

   and 
  some 
  one 
  of 
  these 
  species 
  must 
  be 
  chosen 
  as 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  his 
  

   genus. 
  

  

  Everyone, 
  however, 
  seems 
  to 
  have 
  shrunk 
  from 
  reviving 
  the 
  name 
  

   Pectunculus; 
  even 
  Dr. 
  Dall 
  ^ 
  only 
  remarks 
  that 
  this 
  assemblage 
  of 
  

   Da 
  Costa's 
  "is 
  practically 
  synonymous 
  with 
  Venus", 
  and 
  thus 
  

   dismisses 
  it 
  from 
  further 
  consideration. 
  But 
  the 
  name 
  cannot 
  be 
  

   rejected 
  for 
  sucli 
  a 
  reason. 
  Under 
  the 
  rules 
  of 
  the 
  International 
  

   Commission 
  it 
  must 
  be 
  recognized 
  as 
  a 
  generic 
  name 
  because 
  Da 
  Costa 
  

   was 
  a 
  binomial 
  author 
  and 
  his 
  use 
  of 
  the 
  name 
  has 
  priority. 
  The 
  

   facts 
  that 
  it 
  contained 
  a 
  mixture 
  of 
  modern 
  genera 
  and 
  that 
  it 
  had 
  

   been 
  subsequently 
  applied 
  to 
  another 
  group 
  of 
  shells 
  do 
  not 
  invalidate 
  

   it. 
  Having 
  adopted 
  the 
  Glycimeris 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa 
  as 
  a 
  valid 
  name, 
  

   Dr. 
  Dall 
  ought 
  certainly 
  to 
  have 
  adopted 
  his 
  other 
  genera 
  Pecttmculus 
  

   and 
  Cuneus 
  when 
  he 
  was 
  dealing 
  Avith 
  the 
  nomenclature 
  of 
  the 
  

   Veneridse. 
  As 
  he 
  did 
  not 
  do 
  so, 
  I 
  think 
  these 
  names 
  should 
  be 
  

   established 
  by 
  the 
  selection 
  of 
  types 
  as 
  soon 
  as 
  possible. 
  

  

  There 
  can 
  be 
  little 
  doubt 
  that 
  for 
  some 
  reason 
  or 
  other 
  Da 
  Costa 
  was 
  

   prejudiced 
  against 
  Linnaeus 
  and 
  his 
  nomenclature, 
  and 
  that 
  he 
  thought 
  

   himself 
  quite 
  at 
  liberty 
  to 
  alter 
  this 
  nomenclature, 
  either 
  by 
  using 
  

   current 
  names 
  with 
  a 
  different 
  application 
  or 
  by 
  inventing 
  new 
  names. 
  

   He 
  also 
  felt 
  no 
  obligation 
  to 
  adopt 
  even 
  the 
  specific 
  names 
  used 
  by 
  

   Linnaeus, 
  so 
  that 
  we 
  find 
  him 
  proposing 
  new 
  names 
  for 
  all 
  the 
  species 
  

   which 
  he 
  refers 
  to 
  his 
  genus 
  Pectunculus. 
  The 
  following 
  is 
  a 
  list 
  of 
  

  

  ^ 
  Trans. 
  Wagner 
  Free 
  Inst. 
  Sc, 
  supra 
  cit. 
  

  

  