Apeil 23, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



613 



that have been in use for many decades has 

 prevented the author from relegating them to 

 oblivion if some other name seem to him to be 

 the correct one in accordance with the strict 

 rules of biologic nomenclature. For examples, 

 note the following: 



Strophia changed to Cerion, Yermetus to 

 Vermicularis, Utriculus to Retusa, Pleuro- 

 toma to Turris, Fulgur to Busycon, Eulima to 

 Meldnella, Astralium to Astraea, Crassaiella 

 to CrassatellUes, Gylindrella to Urocoptis, Tor- 

 natina to Acteocina, Bulla to Bullaria, Tur- 

 hinella to Xancus, Tritonidea to Gantharus, 

 Sigaretus to Sinum, Pectunculus to Olycyme- 

 ris, Lucina to Phacoides. 



Since the above changes are for the most 

 part mere substitutions of a less well-known 

 name for one in more general use, there can be 

 no doubt that it becomes the most of us with 

 less special training in moUuscan nomencla- 

 ture to follow Dr. Dall's lead in our future 

 publications. However, in some instances the 

 changes suggested are based on Bolten's pub- 

 lication, referred to as "Mus. Boltenianum, 

 1Y98," antedating Lamarck in " Prodrome " by 

 one year; yet of that rare edition we have 

 understood Dr. Dall to say that there are but 

 four copies in existence, though recently Schor- 

 born's republication (75 copies) renders the 

 work more accessible to workers, at least in the 

 vicinities of large libraries. To what extent 

 the old masters were excusable for not possess- 

 ing one out of perhaps a haK dozen copies of 

 a private work seems to us certainly a legiti- 

 mate query. Nor does the number Y5 strike 

 us as rashly great in this early twentieth-cen- 

 tury literature. The only change we sincerely 

 regret is Pectunculus to Glycymeris, both 

 names having become well established in the 

 literature for very different types from those 

 now proposed. However imperative the inex- 

 orable laws of biologic nomenclature may be 

 as regards this matter, Blainville's use in 

 "Man. Malac, Vol. I., p. 540, 1825, of the ad- 

 jective Phacoides can not be regarded as fur- 

 nishing a sound basis for " Genus Phacoides 

 Blainville." However, so far as the under- 

 signed is concerned, such matters are very 



secondary in importance to the many state- 

 ments and suggestions regarding matters of 

 correlation and evolution. Note the artifi- 

 ciality of certain generic terms as brought out 

 in Dall's discussion of the species Vellorita 

 floridana. He says : " this fossil has the conch- 

 ological features of the recent species, the 

 V. cyprinoides of Asia, but the combination 

 is one which is probably due to dynamic 

 causes operating upon a species of Gyrena, 

 and which might occur sporadically anywhere 

 within the distribution of the genus Gyrena. 

 The Asiatic or African forms have probably 

 no more intimate connection with the Ameri- 

 can fossils than that thus indicated, and the 

 same is true of the fossil Batissa from the 

 Puget group and its South Sea analogues. 

 The 'genus' Hinnites is another form in 

 which it is unlikely that there is any genetic 

 connection between the species occurring in 

 different horizons except what is furnished 

 by the genus Pecien, from which Hinnites 

 species are probably mere sports." 



Extremely valuable as a connecting link 

 between the Jackson and Vicksburg fore- 

 runners and the Recent Busycons is the new 

 species figured as B. stellatum, (PI. 10, Pigs. 

 Y, 9). Noteworthy from a lithologic stand- 

 point is the statement that silicification of 

 the calcareous matter of the fossils exposed 

 between tides is now going on. We heartily 

 agree with the author in his dislike of the 

 present usage of the term " formation." We 

 have never understood why the taxonomy of 

 geologic units should be other than that sug- 

 gested by the International Geol. Congress, 

 '89, i. e., Group, System, Series, Stage, with 

 corresponding time units. Era, Period, Epoch 

 and Age. Finally, as an interesting matter in 

 methods of illustration, we have a chance to 

 see in this monograph in juxtaposition some 

 excellent pen-and-ink drawings by McConnell 

 and the results of modern photographic meth- 

 ods in use by the U. S. Geological Survey. 

 The latter are good, though sometimes show- 

 ing a lack on the part of the artist of the finer 

 essential features of the shell. This mono- 

 graph must be regarded as a distinct and valu- 



