﻿IKEDALE 
  : 
  ON 
  MISAPPLIED 
  GENERIC 
  NAMES. 
  261 
  

  

  distinct 
  for 
  both 
  to 
  stand. 
  Consequently, 
  according 
  to 
  the 
  nomen- 
  

   clatorial 
  laws 
  at 
  present 
  in 
  force, 
  Newtoniella 
  must 
  be 
  rejected, 
  and 
  

   Cerithiella, 
  Verrill, 
  be 
  restored. 
  When 
  looking 
  into 
  this 
  matter 
  I 
  met 
  

   with 
  a 
  paper 
  in 
  the 
  Rev. 
  Critique 
  Paleozool., 
  vol. 
  iv, 
  1900, 
  in 
  which 
  

   Cossmann 
  added 
  rather 
  notably 
  to 
  the 
  already 
  burdened 
  synonymy 
  

   of 
  recent 
  conchology. 
  The 
  title 
  of 
  this 
  paper, 
  " 
  Rectifications 
  do 
  

   Nomenclature," 
  seemed 
  to 
  me 
  inappropriate. 
  On 
  p. 
  42 
  M. 
  Cossmann 
  

   proposed 
  Garrettia 
  to 
  replace 
  Libera, 
  Garrett, 
  which 
  he 
  contended 
  was 
  

   preoccupied 
  by 
  Libera, 
  de 
  Haan, 
  1825. 
  But 
  six 
  years 
  previously 
  

   Pilsbry 
  (Man. 
  Conch., 
  ser. 
  ii, 
  vol. 
  ix, 
  p. 
  23), 
  working 
  on 
  the 
  genus 
  

   IJbera, 
  Garrett, 
  noticed 
  de 
  Haan's 
  use 
  and 
  wrote 
  " 
  which 
  was 
  not 
  

   proposed 
  as 
  a 
  generic 
  name, 
  and 
  is 
  in 
  no 
  sense 
  such 
  ". 
  Reference 
  to 
  

   de 
  Haan's 
  work 
  proved 
  the 
  accuracy 
  of 
  Pilsbry's 
  statement, 
  and 
  the 
  

   superfluity 
  of 
  Cossmann's 
  introduction. 
  Moreover, 
  Garrettia 
  had 
  been 
  

   previously 
  used 
  by 
  Semper. 
  

  

  Cossmann 
  next 
  invented 
  Porcupinia 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  for 
  Tkarsis, 
  Jeffreys, 
  

   preoccupied 
  but 
  three 
  years 
  before 
  Miss 
  Bush 
  (Trans. 
  Conn. 
  Acad., 
  

   vol. 
  X, 
  p. 
  113), 
  working 
  upon 
  these 
  molluscs, 
  had 
  introduced 
  Tharsiella, 
  

   so 
  that 
  Cossmann's 
  name 
  is 
  another 
  synonym. 
  

  

  Perhaps 
  the 
  most 
  interesting 
  (I 
  had 
  nearly 
  used 
  a 
  stronger 
  word) 
  

   case 
  is 
  on 
  the 
  next 
  page, 
  when 
  Cossmann 
  concocted 
  Tiberiola, 
  under 
  

   tlie 
  impression 
  that 
  Tiberia, 
  Jeffreys, 
  was 
  preoccupied 
  by 
  'Liberia, 
  

   Monterosato, 
  whereas 
  they 
  were 
  both 
  used 
  for 
  the 
  same 
  shell, 
  

   Monterosato 
  crediting 
  it 
  to 
  Jeffreys 
  MS. 
  ! 
  

  

  Cossmann 
  also 
  provided 
  Hoylia, 
  as 
  he 
  urged 
  LListiopsis, 
  Hoyle, 
  was 
  

   ineligible 
  on 
  account 
  of 
  a 
  prior 
  Ilistiops. 
  This 
  has 
  been 
  a 
  debatable 
  

   point, 
  so 
  I 
  would 
  here 
  give 
  Cossmann 
  the 
  benefit 
  of 
  the 
  doubt. 
  

   In 
  the 
  preceding 
  cases 
  1 
  consider 
  that 
  Cossmann's 
  action 
  merits 
  

   condemnation. 
  

  

  Rafinesque's 
  Analyse 
  de 
  la 
  Nature, 
  1815. 
  

  

  This 
  work, 
  which 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  a 
  very 
  scarce 
  one, 
  lias 
  been 
  recently 
  

   brought 
  into 
  prominence 
  through 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  some 
  of 
  the 
  names 
  

   proposed 
  in 
  it 
  have 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  owing 
  to 
  the 
  ineligibility 
  of 
  some 
  

   commonly 
  accepted 
  names. 
  I 
  had 
  great 
  difficulty 
  in 
  seeing 
  this 
  book 
  

   and 
  therefore 
  consider 
  a 
  few 
  notes 
  may 
  be 
  acceptable, 
  and 
  also 
  give 
  

   a 
  list 
  of 
  the 
  valid 
  names 
  proposed 
  by 
  Rafinesque. 
  This 
  writer 
  

   proposed 
  a 
  classification 
  of 
  Nature, 
  introducing 
  new 
  names 
  for 
  almost 
  

   all 
  his 
  groups. 
  Thus 
  the 
  Mollusca 
  appear 
  as 
  Classe 
  Apalosia, 
  which 
  

   he 
  divided 
  into 
  two 
  Sous-Classes 
  Cephadelia 
  and 
  Acephalia. 
  The 
  

   Cephadelia 
  he 
  divided 
  into 
  four 
  orders, 
  Cephalopodia, 
  Pteropodia, 
  

   Gasteropodia, 
  and 
  Spironotia; 
  the 
  Acephalia 
  into 
  two 
  orders, 
  Bivalvia 
  

   and 
  Poleteria. 
  Then 
  numerous 
  minor 
  divisions 
  are 
  all 
  named, 
  and 
  

   then 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  the 
  genera 
  he 
  recognized 
  follow. 
  No 
  descriptions 
  

   aie 
  offered, 
  and 
  all 
  the 
  names 
  he 
  claims 
  as 
  his 
  own 
  are 
  followed 
  by 
  R. 
  

   Fortunately 
  the 
  majority 
  of 
  these 
  names 
  arc 
  nude 
  and 
  hence 
  of 
  no 
  

   consequence 
  ; 
  but 
  unfortunately 
  when 
  the 
  look, 
  formation, 
  or 
  sound 
  

   of 
  a 
  prior 
  name 
  did 
  not 
  please 
  him 
  he 
  proposed 
  a 
  substitute, 
  and 
  in 
  

   all 
  the 
  cases 
  when 
  the 
  offending 
  name 
  is 
  correctly 
  cited 
  so 
  must 
  the 
  

   substitute 
  be 
  considered. 
  

  

  