﻿JDKES-BROWNE 
  : 
  ON 
  NOMENCLATURE 
  OF 
  VENERID.E. 
  251 
  

  

  the 
  name 
  of 
  Cimeus, 
  aud 
  we 
  have 
  in 
  the 
  first 
  place 
  to 
  ascertain 
  

   whether 
  any 
  such 
  selection 
  has 
  been 
  made. 
  

  

  In 
  1811 
  Megerlevon 
  Muhlfeldt 
  proposed 
  a 
  genus 
  Cuneus, 
  but 
  it 
  had 
  

   no 
  connexion 
  with 
  that 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  his 
  type 
  being 
  Venus 
  Meroe, 
  Linn., 
  

   which 
  is 
  referable 
  to 
  the 
  genus 
  Sunetta 
  of 
  Link 
  (1807), 
  so 
  tliat 
  

   Megerle's 
  Cuneus 
  has 
  no 
  standing. 
  

  

  In 
  1851 
  Gray 
  (List 
  of 
  British 
  Mollusca, 
  p. 
  46) 
  very 
  properly 
  tried 
  

   to 
  restrict 
  the 
  name 
  to 
  part 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  heterogeneous 
  group, 
  but 
  

   unfortunately 
  he 
  chose 
  Donax 
  vittatus 
  as 
  type, 
  which 
  belongs 
  to 
  the 
  

   denticulatus 
  section 
  of 
  Donax, 
  separated 
  by 
  Scopoli 
  in 
  1777 
  under 
  the 
  

   name 
  of 
  Chion 
  with 
  B. 
  denticulatus 
  as 
  example. 
  Gray's 
  selection 
  is 
  

   therefore 
  invalid, 
  and 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Cuneus 
  must 
  be 
  transferred 
  to 
  some 
  

   other 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  species 
  

  

  On 
  the 
  other 
  hand, 
  in 
  1853, 
  Morch 
  adopted 
  the 
  name 
  Cuneus 
  (Da 
  

   Costa) 
  for 
  a 
  group 
  of 
  Tapes 
  which 
  included 
  pallastra, 
  decussatus, 
  

   rhomboides, 
  and 
  others, 
  a 
  heterogeneous 
  assemblage 
  of 
  which 
  no 
  type 
  

   was 
  indicated. 
  

  

  In 
  1857 
  the 
  Messrs. 
  Adams, 
  who 
  always 
  followed 
  the 
  practice 
  of 
  

   regarding 
  the 
  first 
  species 
  of 
  an 
  author 
  as 
  his 
  type, 
  assigned 
  the 
  name 
  

   of 
  Cuneus 
  (Da 
  Costa) 
  to 
  a 
  restricted 
  group 
  of 
  Tapes 
  in 
  which 
  they 
  

   included 
  his 
  first 
  species, 
  V. 
  decussatus. 
  It 
  is 
  evident 
  that 
  they 
  con- 
  

   sidered 
  this 
  to 
  be 
  his 
  type, 
  though 
  they 
  did 
  not 
  definitely 
  designate 
  it 
  

   as 
  such, 
  merely 
  giving 
  his 
  generic 
  name 
  to 
  the 
  group. 
  

  

  The 
  only 
  other 
  author 
  to 
  whom 
  we 
  need 
  refer 
  is 
  Dr. 
  Dall, 
  who 
  

   had 
  the 
  opportunity 
  in 
  1900 
  to 
  1903 
  of 
  settling 
  the 
  matter 
  and 
  of 
  

   establishing 
  the 
  genus 
  Cuneus, 
  but 
  most 
  unaccountably 
  he 
  avoided 
  

   doing 
  so. 
  In 
  his 
  " 
  Tertiary 
  Fauna 
  of 
  Florida",^ 
  under 
  the 
  head 
  of 
  

   Donax, 
  after 
  remarking 
  that 
  the 
  Donax 
  of 
  Linnaeus 
  was 
  a 
  hetero- 
  

   geneous 
  group 
  he 
  wrote: 
  "Da 
  Costa's 
  Cuneus 
  was 
  a 
  similar 
  assembly, 
  

   a 
  substitution 
  ratlier 
  than 
  a 
  dismemberment 
  of 
  the 
  Linnsean 
  group, 
  

   and 
  may 
  be 
  regarded 
  as 
  a 
  strict 
  synonym 
  of 
  Donax 
  y 
  This 
  statement 
  

   is 
  not 
  only 
  incorrect, 
  but, 
  even 
  if 
  it 
  were 
  true, 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  name 
  

   would 
  still 
  have 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  for 
  some 
  part 
  of 
  this 
  " 
  heterogeneous 
  

   assembly 
  ". 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  continuation 
  of 
  his 
  monograph 
  under 
  Veneridas, 
  Dr. 
  Dall 
  

   made 
  the 
  unfortunate 
  mistake 
  already 
  referred 
  to 
  of 
  assigning 
  the 
  

   name 
  Paphia 
  to 
  the 
  Tapes 
  group, 
  and 
  under 
  the 
  heading 
  of 
  Paphia 
  

   (p. 
  1322) 
  he 
  has 
  this 
  curious 
  reference 
  in 
  the 
  synonymy: 
  "Cuneus, 
  

   da 
  Costa, 
  Brit. 
  Conch., 
  p. 
  202, 
  1778, 
  not 
  of 
  da 
  Costa, 
  Elem. 
  Conch., 
  

   1776 
  {Trigonia), 
  nor 
  Cuneus, 
  Deshayes, 
  1853." 
  

  

  From 
  this 
  one 
  would 
  suppose 
  tliat 
  he 
  rejected 
  Ctmeus 
  (Da 
  Costa, 
  

   1778), 
  because 
  that 
  of 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  1776, 
  was 
  different. 
  But 
  Dr. 
  Dall 
  

   knew 
  very 
  well 
  that 
  Da 
  Costa 
  was 
  not 
  binomial 
  in 
  liis 
  first 
  book, 
  and 
  

   consequently 
  there 
  was 
  no 
  occasion 
  even 
  to 
  mention 
  it. 
  Further, 
  if 
  

   he 
  admitted 
  that 
  Cuneus 
  (Da 
  Costa, 
  1778) 
  was 
  sj-nonymous 
  with 
  

   Paphia 
  (Bolten), 
  then 
  the 
  former 
  has 
  i)riority 
  as 
  the 
  generic 
  name. 
  

  

  Thus, 
  I 
  am 
  left 
  to 
  consider 
  the 
  (j^uestion 
  of 
  choosing 
  a 
  type 
  to 
  

   perpetuate 
  the 
  name 
  of 
  Cuneus, 
  and 
  am 
  faced 
  with 
  a 
  curious 
  difficulty 
  

  

  ^ 
  Trans. 
  Wagner 
  Free 
  Inst. 
  Sc., 
  vol. 
  iii, 
  p. 
  965, 
  1900. 
  

  

  