278 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. 16, NO. 9, JUNE, I922. 



that Hygromia Risso must not be rejected because of the earlier 

 Hygroma Sclirank, if the Rules and Recommendations of the Inter- 

 national Code are to be observed. Dr. Pilsbry's use of the name 

 Hygro7nia consequently seems to be perfectly correct, and this name 

 should continue to be given to the genus, subgenus, and section, 

 which have as their common type H. cinctella (Drap). 

 Trichia Hartmann. 



Messrs. Gude and Woodward agree that this name was published in 

 1840, prior to Trichia de Haan, 1841 ; but they reject it in favour of 

 CapcUifera Honigmann, 1906, apparently because of the earlier names 

 Trichitis Fabricius, 1775, and Trichia Haller, 1768. But the Recom- 

 mendation of Article 36, quoted above, shows that the name Trichia 

 Hartmann must not be rejected because of the earlier Trichius of 

 Fabricius, which differs from it in termination — the case is similar to 

 that of Ficus and Fica,t\\& first example given under the Article.-"^ 

 And Article i likewise seems to prohibit tlie rejection of Hartmann's 

 name on account of the earlier Trichia of Haller; for the lowly 

 organism to which Haller gave this name was placed by him among 

 the plants, and although many biologists now include the group to 

 which it belongs in the animal kingdom, the Rule states that if an 

 organism be transferred from the vegetable to the animal kingdom its 

 name retains its " original botanical status." It is therefore evident 

 that no valid reason has been given for the rejection of the name 

 Trichia Hartmann for the section of which H. hispida is the type, and 

 it has sixty-six years' priority over Capillifera Honigmann. 



In their paper of October, 192 1, Gude and Woodward also apply the 

 name Capillifera Honigmann — instead of Trichia Hartmann — to the 

 subgenus to which this section belongs ; but in their later paper they 

 maintain that the subgenus should be named Perforatella Schliiter 

 (1838). This also is a mistake. It is now agreed that the type of 

 Perforatella Schliiter is H. bidetis Chemn., and Schmidt^ and others 

 have shown that in this species the reproductive organs are without 

 the paired dart-sacs and accessory sacs which characterise the sub- 

 genus Trichia, but that these organs resemble those found in the 

 subgenus which Gude and Woodward named Monachella in October 

 and Monachoides in December, a group with which Hesse^ accQrdingly 

 associates Schluter's subgenus. Thus from the anatomy of H. bidens 

 Chem. it is certain that Pefforatella Schliiter should not be regarded 



X This example shows that the International Commission were rightly following Classical 

 usage in deciding that generic names differing in this manner should not be regarded as 

 homonyms ; for although Picus and Pica- are almost certainly merely the masculine and feminine 

 derivatives of the same root, they were regarded as distinct substantives and applied to different 

 kinds of birds by Classical authors. 



2 Abhandl. Naturwiss. Vereines f. Sachsen u. Thiiringen, vol. i, 1855, pi. v, fig. 28. 



3 Archiv f. Molluskenkunde, 1921, p. 66. 



