240 JOURNAL OF CONCHOI.OGY, VOL. 12, NO. 9, JANUARY, I909. 



seven varieties under this name among the Helices of France. How 

 many vars. or forms ''major'' are recognized among the eleven 

 hundred species recorded by Westerlund, time is lacking to ascertain, 

 but they must be very numerous. 



Helix major, an American species, was formally described by 

 Binney in 1S37. 



Under the International Code, all of these names will have to be 

 changed, with the possible exception of the one, which may have 

 priority not only over the major of Binney but over all the other 

 vars. ''major'' that have ever been described in the genus Helix. If 

 there is such an one, Binney's use of the name was improper and this 

 well-known American form must be rechristened. This is the result 

 in simply a single case. Multiply this by the cases of duplication of 

 varietal names in the whole Palaearctic Fauna and a whole volume 

 would be required to record this wholesale slaughter of the innocents. 



It would be eminently appropriate if the conchologist, who under- 

 takes this revision, would rechristen the largest and most conspicuous 

 of these varieties as var. expostfacta. 



It is possible, perhaps, that the eminent scientists, who co-operated 

 in formulating and securing the adoption of Article XI, did not fully 

 appreciate the unfortunate and wide-spread confusion that must 

 inevitably result from the practical application of the rule to the 

 existing nomenclature. 



Again, if the rule is to be enforced (and if it is not to be strictly 



construed, it should be abrogated) the following European Lymn^eas 



will have to be re-named, as their names are preoccupied for American 



species, assuming that the dates given by Westerlund are correct. 



L. peregra v. ci/rfa Cless. (1S76), not Z. curta Lea (1841). 



L. peregra v. decollata Anders (1881), not Z. dccoUata Mighels 



(1841). 

 L. palnstris v. curta Cless. (1S73), not Z. curta Lea (1841). 

 Z. turricula v. gracilis Haz. (1881), not Z. gracilis Zieten 

 (1830) nor Jay (1839). 



In view of the fact that Article XI is already embodied in the 

 International Code and the probability that this Code will be generally 

 recognized, it behoves the European conchologists, who have become 

 so adept in recognizing varietal distinctions, to take cognizance of 

 the present condition of aff;airs and, until the article shall be amended, 

 conform to its requirements, if they desire to retain the credit of their 

 scientific labours, 



