﻿349 
  

  

  SOME 
  REMARKS 
  ON 
  THE 
  NOMENCLATURE 
  OF 
  THE 
  VENERID^. 
  

   By 
  Dr. 
  W. 
  H. 
  Dall. 
  

  

  Eead 
  12th 
  May, 
  1911. 
  

  

  The 
  March 
  number 
  of 
  the 
  Proceedings 
  of 
  the 
  Society 
  contains 
  an 
  

   extended 
  criticism 
  of 
  the 
  nomenclature 
  adopted 
  by 
  me 
  in 
  my 
  revision 
  

   of 
  the 
  Veneridae. 
  The 
  author, 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne, 
  in 
  more 
  than 
  one 
  

   paper 
  lias 
  shown 
  that 
  his 
  idea 
  of 
  the 
  relation 
  of 
  species 
  is 
  largely 
  

   based 
  on 
  superficial 
  characters, 
  such 
  as 
  sculpture, 
  a 
  view 
  which 
  I 
  do 
  

   not 
  share 
  and 
  in 
  which 
  Bolteii, 
  whom 
  he 
  ci'iticizes 
  severely 
  without 
  

   consideration 
  for 
  the 
  different 
  state 
  of 
  science 
  in 
  1798, 
  was 
  his 
  

   precursor. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Jukes- 
  Browne's 
  opinions 
  on 
  settled 
  questions 
  may 
  be 
  passed 
  

   without 
  remark. 
  In 
  some 
  other 
  matters 
  it 
  is 
  perhaps 
  well 
  that 
  

   I 
  should 
  explain 
  the 
  principles 
  which 
  led 
  me 
  to 
  certain 
  conclusions, 
  

   for 
  the 
  sake 
  of 
  those 
  who 
  do 
  not 
  care 
  to 
  explore 
  the 
  archaeology 
  of 
  

   the 
  subject. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  matter 
  of 
  the 
  selection 
  of 
  a 
  tj^pe 
  for 
  a 
  genus 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  

   those 
  authors 
  who 
  did 
  not 
  specify 
  a 
  species 
  as 
  typical, 
  the 
  final 
  

   paragraph, 
  rule 
  30, 
  cited 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne, 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  onlj- 
  rule 
  

   applicable 
  to 
  the 
  matter. 
  In 
  genera 
  proposed 
  with 
  only 
  one 
  species 
  

   (inonotypical) 
  that 
  species 
  necessarily 
  becomes 
  the 
  type 
  whether 
  

   designated 
  as 
  a 
  type 
  or 
  not, 
  and 
  on 
  this 
  basis 
  I 
  have 
  regarded 
  the 
  

   species 
  cited 
  in 
  Lamarck's 
  Prodrome 
  of 
  1799 
  as 
  typical 
  of 
  the 
  genera 
  

   accepted 
  or 
  proposed 
  by 
  him 
  in 
  that 
  publication. 
  Venun, 
  Lamarck, 
  

   1799, 
  is 
  typified 
  by 
  V. 
  jnercenaria, 
  L., 
  no 
  matter 
  what 
  views 
  Linnaeus 
  

   or 
  Lamarck 
  may 
  have 
  privately 
  held 
  before 
  or 
  after 
  that 
  publication. 
  

   And 
  if 
  Venus, 
  Linne, 
  contained 
  that 
  species, 
  and 
  no 
  type 
  had 
  been 
  

   selected 
  before 
  that 
  1799 
  publication, 
  V.mercenaria 
  becomes, 
  ipso 
  facto 
  ^ 
  

   the 
  type 
  of 
  Venus 
  (L.), 
  Lam. 
  This 
  is 
  the 
  view 
  I 
  have 
  taken, 
  and, 
  

   while 
  it 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  universally 
  accepted, 
  my 
  work 
  must 
  be 
  criticized, 
  

   if 
  at 
  all 
  justly, 
  on 
  that 
  basis. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne 
  objects 
  to 
  the 
  acceptation 
  of 
  the 
  monotypical 
  

   genus, 
  yet 
  later 
  he 
  argues 
  for 
  the 
  acceptation 
  of 
  Gafrarium, 
  H. 
  and 
  

   A. 
  Adams, 
  who 
  designated 
  no 
  type 
  and 
  listed 
  alphabetically 
  five 
  

   species. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne 
  classes 
  Bolten's 
  genera 
  as 
  merely 
  "arbitrary 
  

   assemblages 
  not 
  distinguishable 
  from 
  one 
  another 
  by 
  any 
  common 
  

   generic 
  characters 
  ", 
  which 
  seems 
  to 
  me, 
  taking 
  the 
  state 
  of 
  science 
  at 
  

   the 
  time 
  into 
  account, 
  a 
  misrepresentation 
  of 
  the 
  facts. 
  It 
  is 
  true 
  

   Bolten, 
  with 
  more 
  excuse 
  than 
  his 
  critic, 
  based 
  his 
  genera 
  largely 
  on 
  

   surface 
  characters 
  and 
  external 
  form 
  ; 
  nevertheless, 
  his 
  classification 
  

   was 
  far 
  in 
  advance 
  of 
  his 
  time. 
  

  

  In 
  proposing 
  to 
  unite 
  Protothaca 
  with 
  Chimie, 
  my 
  critic 
  ignores 
  the 
  

   anatomical 
  differences, 
  pallial 
  sinus, 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  liinge, 
  and 
  

   everything 
  except 
  the 
  more 
  or 
  less 
  (generally 
  less) 
  reticulate 
  surface- 
  

   sculpture. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  discussion 
  of 
  the 
  name 
  Papliia, 
  Bolten, 
  I 
  found 
  Bolten's, 
  

  

  