98 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. II, NO. 4, OCTOBER, I904. 



As regards our own province of Mollusca, it is notorious that 

 different countries are guided by different rules and customs in this 

 matter, and even in our own country different authors and publishing 

 institutions use different names for the same shell. I propose to call 

 attention to some of these cases in the hope that a discussion may 

 lead to some more combined action being taken in the matter. 



I pass over the question of pre-Linnean nomenclature, and assume 

 that all zoologists will eventually agree to take 1758, the date of the 

 tenth edition of the "Systema Naturse," as the starting-point for 

 binomial nomenclature. After fixing this date, the most important 

 question that arises is whether generic and sub-generic names pub- 

 lished without descriptions or figures in catalogues of old collections 

 of shells should be admitted and adopted. It has generally been 

 answered in the negative, and we find Dr. P. Fischer, on p. 319 of 

 of his "Manuel de Conchyliologie," formulating a rule to "reject 

 every specific or generic name which is not based on a sufficiently 

 clear description or on a reference to accessible illustrations ('icono- 

 graphie convenable'); as a consequence to beware of accepting the 

 names printed in sale catalogues (Humphrey, Bolten, etc.), which are 

 without value and without any definition, and only tend to foster the 

 hydra of synonomy." 



Fischer himself, however, was not consistent, for he has accepted 

 some of Bolten's names, and also the names proposed by Morch in 

 in his catalogue of Count Yoldi's collection, issued in 1853. Morch's 

 names are indeed generally accepted, but they were not accompanied 

 by descriptions or definitions of any kind ; certain species are 

 assigned to each and sometimes figures are referred to, but this has 

 not prevented subsequent writers from giving different interpretations 

 to his names, for it is not possible in every case to be sure what 

 special characters Morch had in his mind when grouping certain 

 species under a new name. 



Quite recently, and in a communication to this Society,^ Dr. Dall 

 has discussed the claims of the two publications which were specially 

 mentioned and condemned by P. Fischer. He agrees with Fischer 

 that Humphrey's catalogue is not entitled to be cited, because it was 

 issued without the name of either author or publisher, and because it 

 gives no diagnoses and cites no figures. He maintains, however, that 

 the case is otherwise with Bolten, in whose "Museum Boltenianum" 

 (1798) "though no diagnoses were given, full citations of name, 

 volume, page, and figure of previous authors were provided, and there 

 seems to be no way in which we can consistently refuse to adopt the 

 Boltenian name, if we accept any names given without a diagnosis, 

 as has now become a common practice." 



I /. 0/ Conch., vol. II, p. 50. 



