SMITH : NOMENCLATURE OF CERTAIN GENERA. 341 



If Leach had pubUshed his Synopsis in 1820, both his 

 names {Zua and Azeca) would have taken precedence of those 

 subsequently proposed. 



The CocJilicopa of Ferussac (1821) included all sorts of 

 forms, and constituted his tenth subgenus oi Helix. He divided 

 it into two groups, FolyphemcB (Montfort) and Styloides. In the 

 first section he included H. priamus {flalia of modern authors, 

 a marine shell) and several well-known species of Glandina. 

 In his second section {Styloides) he placed a very miscellaneous 

 group of species, including forms of Columna, Stenogyra, &'c., 

 and also H. lubrica, H. follicidus, Gronovius, and Helix acicula 

 Miiller. 



Such being the case, Cochlicopa, as originally proposed by 

 Ferussac, cannot be admitted. However, in 1826 Risso^ 

 eliminated three of the above species and founded a genus for 

 each. To H lubrica he applied Ferussac's name Cochlicopa^ 

 for H. folliculus he founded Fentssacia, and for H. acicula he 

 proposed the genus Acicula," at the same time altering the 

 specific name to eburnea. 



Cionella was proposed by Jeffreys ^ in 1829 for the re- 

 ception oi H. lubrica, H acicula, and C. elongata Jeff {=^Steno- 

 gyra octona Chem. sp.). 



These three species are representatives of three different 

 genera as now understood, and the first two of them, as already 

 shown, had previously been located by Risso (1836) in Cochlicopa 

 and Acicula respectively. It is therefore quite evident that the 

 name Cionella cannot be employed for either of these British 

 species. 



The question now arises whether we should place H lubrica, 

 T. tridens and H. acicula in one, two, or three genera. 

 H acicula is so different, both conchologically and in respect of 

 the animal, that its generic separation is imperative. It is quite 



1 Hist. Nat. Europe, M^rid. vol. iv, pp. 79-Si. 



2 Preoccupied by Hartmann in 18-21. 



3 Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xvi, p. 347. 



