﻿350 
  PKOCEEDIXGS 
  OF 
  THE 
  MALACOLOGICAL 
  SOCIETY. 
  

  

  catalogue 
  of 
  species 
  to 
  contain 
  seven 
  species 
  of 
  Ta])es 
  {sensu 
  lata), 
  one 
  

   Sunetta, 
  and 
  one 
  ATeretrix 
  (in 
  the 
  sense 
  of 
  Lamarck, 
  =: 
  Cytherea). 
  

   As 
  seven-ninths 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  thus 
  belonged 
  to 
  one 
  group 
  I 
  felt 
  that 
  

   I 
  was 
  giving 
  better 
  expression 
  to 
  Bolten's 
  idea 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  by 
  

   selecting 
  a 
  type 
  from 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  seven 
  than 
  by 
  taking 
  the 
  one 
  

   discrepant 
  form 
  which 
  headed 
  the 
  list, 
  a 
  Meretrix 
  (Lam.) 
  in 
  the 
  original 
  

   sense, 
  as 
  I 
  correctly 
  (and 
  not 
  by 
  any 
  mistake) 
  stated. 
  I 
  retained 
  

   Tapes, 
  [Megerle, 
  in 
  a 
  subgeneric 
  sense 
  for 
  the 
  species 
  for 
  which 
  it 
  has 
  

   been 
  most 
  commonly 
  used, 
  and 
  therefore 
  the 
  'displacement' 
  complained 
  

   of 
  by 
  my 
  critic 
  does 
  not 
  exist, 
  and 
  Megerle 
  is 
  not, 
  as 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne 
  

   erroneously 
  supposes, 
  deprived 
  of 
  the 
  right 
  to 
  the 
  perpetuation 
  of 
  

   his 
  name. 
  The 
  same 
  results, 
  however, 
  would 
  follow 
  if 
  llr. 
  Jukes- 
  

   Browne's 
  views 
  of 
  the 
  nomenclature 
  of 
  Cuneiis, 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  were 
  

   accepted, 
  though 
  he 
  stops 
  short 
  of 
  stating 
  it. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  Pectuncidus, 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  repugnant 
  as 
  it 
  seems 
  to 
  revive 
  

   a 
  name 
  used 
  by 
  many 
  authors 
  in 
  different 
  senses 
  and 
  not 
  in 
  the 
  

   original 
  sense 
  of 
  the 
  Cockles 
  {Trachycardium) 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  ancients 
  

   gave 
  it, 
  it 
  is 
  probable 
  that 
  it 
  should, 
  following 
  the 
  rules 
  strictly, 
  

   be 
  retained, 
  and 
  the 
  best 
  disposition 
  of 
  it 
  perhaps 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  

   to 
  adopt 
  Da 
  Costa's 
  first 
  species, 
  formerly 
  known 
  as 
  Cyprina 
  Islandica, 
  

   as 
  the 
  type. 
  This 
  species 
  has 
  been 
  so 
  many 
  times 
  renamed 
  that 
  less 
  

   trouble 
  would 
  be 
  caused 
  by 
  its 
  use 
  as 
  the 
  type 
  than 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  any 
  

   of 
  the 
  others 
  listed 
  by 
  Da 
  Costa. 
  But 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne's 
  selection 
  

   of 
  Dosinia 
  exoleta 
  prevents 
  this, 
  and 
  Pectuncidus 
  will 
  have 
  to 
  he 
  

   substituted 
  for 
  Orhiculus, 
  ATegerle, 
  as 
  a 
  subdivision 
  of 
  Dosinia. 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  matter 
  of 
  Cuneiis, 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  his 
  only 
  generic 
  chai'acter 
  is 
  that 
  

   the 
  beaks 
  are 
  near 
  one 
  end. 
  This 
  and 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  the 
  word 
  point 
  

   to 
  Ponax 
  as 
  the 
  kind 
  of 
  shell 
  he 
  had 
  in 
  mind, 
  if, 
  indeed, 
  he 
  had 
  

   any 
  clear 
  idea 
  at 
  all. 
  Gray 
  was 
  quite 
  right 
  in 
  selecting 
  a 
  Ponax 
  for 
  

   the 
  type, 
  only 
  he 
  chose 
  the 
  same 
  species 
  (Z). 
  vittatus, 
  Da 
  Costa) 
  which 
  

   served 
  Lamarck 
  in 
  1799 
  as 
  his 
  monotype 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  Ponax. 
  This 
  

   shell, 
  by 
  the 
  way, 
  has 
  nothing 
  to 
  do 
  with 
  Scopoli's 
  genus 
  Chion, 
  as 
  

   wrongly 
  supposed 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne. 
  On 
  the 
  contrary, 
  it 
  belongs 
  

   to 
  Serrula, 
  which 
  Morch 
  validated 
  from 
  the 
  non-binomial 
  Chemnitz, 
  

   who 
  applied 
  it 
  to 
  this 
  very 
  species. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  already 
  indicated 
  that 
  no 
  mistake 
  in 
  my 
  opinion 
  was 
  made 
  

   in 
  the 
  matter 
  of 
  Paphia, 
  Bolten. 
  Under 
  that 
  head 
  I 
  have 
  the 
  entry 
  in 
  

   my 
  synonym}- 
  " 
  Cuneus 
  (sp.), 
  Da 
  Costa", 
  etc., 
  "1778, 
  not 
  of 
  Da 
  

   Costa, 
  1776 
  (= 
  Triyonia), 
  nor 
  Cuneus, 
  Deshayes, 
  1853." 
  The 
  curious 
  

   thing 
  about 
  this, 
  as 
  cited 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Jukes-Browne, 
  is 
  that 
  he 
  leaves 
  out 
  

   the 
  ' 
  (sp.) 
  ', 
  thereby 
  altering 
  the 
  meaning 
  of 
  the 
  item. 
  Otherwise, 
  

   the 
  entry, 
  uumoditied, 
  simply 
  records 
  a 
  fact 
  to 
  know 
  which, 
  as 
  

   " 
  Cuneus, 
  Da 
  Costa" 
  is 
  cited 
  in 
  the 
  nomenclators 
  as 
  of 
  1776, 
  as 
  well 
  

   as 
  1778, 
  is 
  necessary 
  to 
  avoid 
  misunderstanding 
  by 
  those 
  who 
  do 
  not 
  

   look 
  up 
  the 
  original. 
  

  

  Morch, 
  in 
  reviving 
  Cuneus, 
  Da 
  Costa, 
  as 
  a 
  section 
  of 
  Venus 
  (L.), 
  

   Lam., 
  includes 
  C. 
  reticidatus. 
  Da 
  Costa 
  (= 
  decussatus, 
  L.), 
  the 
  only 
  one 
  

   of 
  the 
  Da 
  Costa 
  species 
  in 
  his 
  list, 
  so 
  (as 
  the 
  older 
  name) 
  if 
  this 
  be 
  

   accepted, 
  it 
  would 
  exclude 
  from 
  valid 
  nomenclature 
  the 
  genus 
  Tapes, 
  

   Megerle, 
  the 
  very 
  result 
  for 
  which 
  he 
  criticizes 
  me, 
  having 
  overlooked 
  

  

  