300 BOOG WATSON: CIRCE VerSUS GOULDIA. 



The question being, therefore, still open, I wish to point out 

 that for Goicldia two positions have been claimed : — 



(i.) That of a genus, which is what its author designed 

 for it; 



(ii.) That of a subgenus of Cvre=Lioconcha Morch. 

 As to i., two things have to be considered: — 



(i.) The definition of Gouldia as a genus by C. B. Adams; 



(2.) Its generic peculiarity at all. 

 As to I, C. B. Adams based his diagnosis on two species, of 

 which, one is unquestionably a Crassatella and the other is 

 Gouldia (or Circe) cerina. To class two forms so diverse as these 

 are under one diagnosis does not imply gross ignorance — nobody 

 has charged that against Professor Adams — but it affects most 

 seriously the value of his diagnosis. It cannot apply to both — 

 who shall decide to which. Mr. Dall says he gives up the Crassa- 

 tella, it is the other which is the true type. Suppose that granted 

 (which yet after all is hardly so), then (2) is G. (or C.) cerina 

 generically so? Mr. Dall thinks something may be said for it on 

 this footing, but finally he retreats from this position and consents 

 to its ranking as a subgenus, therefore the whole of queston i. is 

 settled : Gouldia cannot reckon as a genus. 



We come therefore now to ii. — Is Gouldia to displace Lio- 

 concha as a subgenus of Circe? In answer to that question it may 

 probably be said that many persons will not much care whether it 

 does or not. Subgenera are little more than museum fancies 

 which each person treats as he chooses, but to disturb a name 

 which has so far gained acceptance as Lioconcha has done, in 

 order to make a shelter for a disembodied name like Gouldia is 

 hardly wise. 



On the whole therefore judgment seems to be in with Mr. E. 

 A. Smith, and the Gouldia C. B. Ad. had better be abandoned. 



J.C., iii., April, 1882 



