IS 



THE SENSE— AND NONSENSE-OF THE NAMES OF THE 

 BRITISH LAND AND FRESHWATER SHELLS. 



(Presidential Address delivered at the Annual JNIeeting, Oct. i2> 1912). 



By The Rev. Canon J. W. HORSLF.Y, M.A. 



Twice already has a Presidential Address dealt with the question of 

 the nomenclature of molluscs. In 1896 Mr. J. Cosmo Melvill most 

 learnedly gave an historical sketch of the work of Pre-Linntean writers 

 on shells, and shewed how the great Swedish naturalist had not only 

 been preceded, but taught, by others who laboured in the field of 

 classification and nomenclature, although the tenth and the twelfth 

 editions of his Sysfe/na Natiiriv, published respectively in 1758 and 

 1767, are usually regarded as the starting point. The increasing 

 number of observers and their descriptive writings led, however, to 

 such confusion in the way of synonyms, that in 1842, in Manchester, 

 a committee of naturalists, eminent in various branches, was formed, 

 and they produced the same year what is called the Stricklandian 

 Code — from the name of the reporter or secretary. This Code laid 

 down priority of nomenclature as the basis, adopted binomial 

 nomenclature, and restricted names to Latin or Latinized Greek. 

 It also deprecated the use of barbarous and mythological terms ; of 

 comparative names, such as those ending in ides, oides, forntis ; 

 severely discountenanced hybrid and corrupt names, derived partly 

 from Latin and partly from Greek, or partly from English and partly 

 from Latin, and also what they called ' nonsense names ' ; and 

 advised that names should be derived from persons, only when the 

 persons have deserved such commemoration. Then in 1865 a new 

 and important committee on the subject revised the Stricklandian 

 Code, and inter alia gave a list of no less than sixteen classes of 

 objectionable names. Much attention has subsequently been given 

 to the matter in England, America, France, and Germany, and while 

 Mr. Melvill said " the whole array of animated nature is before us, 

 awaiting patiently a valid enrolment and arrangement systematically 

 and physiologically, and the day is sure to dawn when this will be 

 done ; " it is satisfactory to note that he also said " the moUuscan 

 branch of zoological nomenclature, as regards the genera, seems to 

 be in better case than many of the other sciences." Those of 

 species, and perhaps still more of recognized varieties, may still 

 require attention. 



The other, and prior, Presidential Address was that of Mr. Edgar 

 A. Smith, in 1890, on the nomenclature of certain genera of British 

 land and freshwater shells, in which he advocated, or, perhaps we 



