476 MELVILL : THE PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE. 
reasons for, in this instance, retaining the Kleinian name of Sca/a, in prefer- 
ence to .Cyclostoma Lamk., which latter he rightly assumes, has priority. 
Cuvier and Bosc, indeed, almost immediately adopted Cyclostoma, and it 
was understood that Zzzrbo scalaris L., the precious wentletrap, was the 
typical form, a shell which by no possibility could be mistaken for any other, 
and the demand for which amongst the wealthy virtuosi of the end of the 
last century and commencement of the present was so keen that on more 
than one occasion three hundred guineas was the price paid for a specimen. 
Notwithstanding this, we find Lamarck two years later proposing new 
names, both generic and specific, viz.: Scalarza pretzosa, for this shell, rele- 
gating the term Cyc/ostoma to the old Turbo delphinus, 1801 ; and, again, 
another two or three years later, following Draparnaud, who had added to 
Cyclostoma a considerable number of terrestrial and fluviatile forms, he 
makes C. e/egans the type, eliminating 7. de/phznus, for which the genus 
Delphinula was created. 
This was followed by Duméril and Montfort (1810) under the masculine 
termination Cyc/ostomus, while Sca/aria was universally given to the Wentle- 
trap family, and though sub-divided from time to time, it was not till the 
‘Genera of Recent Mollusca’ appeared, by Messrs. H. and A. Adams, 
1853-58, that Sca/a Klein was reimposed. 
I quote Dall’s remarks as to which name he considers should be 
adopted. He says: ‘‘It is evident that Sca/ar7a is out of the question. 
Klein can by no stretch of courtesy be called a binomial author. His names, 
when adopted by someone who recognises the Linnean nomenclature, may 
stand, but not so of Klein, who opposed Linnceus and all his works. Hum- 
phrey was the first to adopt the Kleinan .Sca/a for the genus, and, though he 
gave no definition, yet in this case there is no doubt as to the species referred 
to. It would seem, therefore, as if the interests of science would be better 
served by adopting the name of Humphrey, than by stickling for the exact 
letter of the law. This is the course I have decided to follow” (p. 306). 
Personally, I should be glad if this could be done; but I do not see 
that Humphrey’s name can be consistently used here, if all his other names 
are unrecognised. It would be argued at once that all should be reinstated, 
and many familiar terms would be thus jeopardised and superseded, for 
Humphrey, though not a describer, was a prolific namer of genera, 
Then, again, Cyclostoma, the next name to be considered on the list 
(for of course Bolten is disallowed), is thrice over a synonym. One of the 
riders in the rules as to the law of priority is directed against synonymous 
terms, and it would surely be a grievous pity, and antagonistic to the true 
interests of science, to allow Cyclostoma to be used for this marine genus. 
Scalavia therefore will we hope stand, and be reinstated on a firm basis. 
Regarding the terrestrial genus Cyclostoma Lamk., Pomatias un- 
doubtedly has priority, being created by Studer in 1789 with type e/egans. 
Hartmannia has accordingly (1891) been proposed by Mr. Bullen Newton 
for the genus hitherto known as Pomatzas Hartm. 
J.C., viii., Oct., 1897. 
