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



names are pressed upon the acceptance of modern zoologists. It is 

 not sufficient to refer to one of these old authors for the purpose of 

 seeing what names he used and what species are specified ; his 

 treatise must be studied as a whole, and his method of arrangement 

 and nomenclature must be thoroughly understood before any of his 

 names can be allowed to displace others. 



To illustrate this point and to demonstrate how careful the enquiry 

 into the validity of any name should be, I propose to discuss the 

 special difficulties which occur in the cases of three well known genera. 



1. Nuculana v. Leda. — The name Nuculana, used by Link, in 

 1807, has been widely adopted as having priority over the Leda of 

 Schumacher (1817), but Dr. Dall considers that there is really no 

 reason to suppose that Link intended to separate the elongate species 

 from the Lamarckian genus Nucula under a new name of Nuculatm} 



The facts seem to be that in 1807 Link published a catalogue of 

 the Rostock Collection, in which he broke up several of the older 

 genera, and proposed many new names ; most of these are properly 

 diagnosed and are available for use wherever they have priority, but 

 he also seems to have altered some previously existing names simply 

 for the sake of improving (in his opinion) the form or spelling of the 

 name. Thus without giving any reason he writes Limaria for Lima, 

 LLarpalis for Harpa, Nassaria for Nassa, Pectiniiim for Peden, and 

 Anatinin for Anatifera. It is hardly necessary to point out that these 

 are needless and inadmissible alterations. 



The name Ahiada does not occur in Link, and it would seem that, 

 as in the cases above cited, he meant to adopt Lamarck's genus, but 

 to alter the form of the name from Nuada to Nuculana. As Dr. 

 Dall remarks : — " Link was enumerating the Rostock Collection, and 

 since it happened that they had only one species, N. rostrata, to 

 represent the genus, it follows the modified name, but there is nothing 

 in this fact nor in the diagnosis of Link to intimate that he intended 

 to sub-divide the original Nuada'''' (op. at., p. 572). 



A mistake of this kind is a serious matter, for in the case of this 

 genus, after being known as Leda for the greater part of last century, 

 the leading conchologists and palaeontologists were finally led to 

 believe that Nuailana was a genuine new name when proposed, and 

 as in that case it clearly had priority of Leda, it has been adopted in 

 various private and official publications ; whereas, if Dr. Dall be right 

 in his contention, the displacement of the name Leda was an abso- 

 lutely needless interference with established nomenclature. 



It is, of course, quite possible that some conchologists will dispute 

 Dr. Dall's reading of Link, and no doubt it is a debateable question, 



I Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 3, pt. 4, p. 57?, 1898. 



