I)AL1. : HISTORY OF THE GENERIC NAME FUSUS. 293 



that to the group which he thus named he referred four shells, which 

 according to our present usage belong — two to Pleurotoma s.s., one to 

 Drillia, and the fourth to Cumia. Third, that by the rules of nomen- 

 clature the type of Fusus must be taken from among the species 

 referred to it when first proposed, and, consequently, that type must 

 be one of the four species just mentioned, neither of which belongs 

 to the genus Fusus as commonly understood. 



Of these species, numbers one and three belong to typical Pleuro- 

 toma Lamarck, 1799 ; number two to Drillia Gray, 1838 ; and number 

 four to tlie subdivision of Colubraria, which was named Cumia by 

 Bivona in 1838. The inclusion of the latter was not so remarkable 

 as might at first sight appear, since there is an angle, almost a sinus, 

 at the posterior portion of the outer lip and the shell is not tortuous 

 as in the typical Colubraiia. 



If we take Helbling's first species as the type, it will be a typical 

 Pleurotoma, which would be most unfortunate, as this name has been 

 universally accepted for one of the most prolific groups of mollusks 

 and utilized in a modified way for the family to which they belong. 

 Probably no name could be mentioned the change of which would 

 produce in the literature of malacology so large a number of regret- 

 able alterations in nomenclature, especially if such a well-known name 

 as Fusus were substituted for it. It seems, therefore, better to pro- 

 ceed by the method of elimination in order to decide on a type. The 

 genus Drillia, to which one of the two remaining species belongs, 

 was proposed by Gray in the January number of Jardine's Magazine 

 of Natural History for 1838. It is almost certain that this publica- 

 tion antedates that of Bivona printed in the same year, but of which 

 a copy does not seem to exist in the United States. The type of 

 Drillia was D. umbilicata Gray, from Sierra Leone. If we assume 

 the earlier publication of Drillia we must fall back on the Cumia 

 reticulata of Blainville (as Tritonitivi) which has been the accepted 

 specific name of Bivona's type. It is probable that less confusion will 

 be caused by this arrangement than if either of tlie other species were 

 selected as type ; as the number of species of Cumia is small, and 

 fewer changes would be involved, especially if the typical Colubraria 

 should prove to be distinct generically from Cumia. 



Of the other groups to which the name Fusus has been applied, 

 Rostellaria will take the name Tibia given by Bolten, Pleurotoma will 

 be called Tiirris Bolten. 



If, as I believe, all anonymous writings, or works without a definite 

 publisher, should be excluded from consideration in matters relating 

 to nomenclature, the names of the " Museum Calonnianum " will have 

 no standing. Colus of that work will, therefore, not prevent the use 



