99 



THE APPLICATION OF POLI'S GENERIC NAMES. 

 By A. J. Jukes-Bkowne, F.Gr.S. 



Read Uth March, 1908. 



It is well known that much difference of opinion exists with regard 

 to the generic names proposed by Poli in his " Testacea utriusque 

 Sicilise " (1791-5); some authors considering that there is nothing 

 to hinder their adoption when they have priority to other names, 

 while others are of opinion that they ought not to be employed in 

 our modern system of conchological nomenclature. As a matter of 

 fact neither view appears to be wholly correct, and I think it will be 

 useful to publish some account of his method of nomenclature, so that, 

 having the facts before him, every student of conchology may be able 

 to form his own opinion of the matter. 



Poll's work is in two folio volumes, and deals principally with the 

 Lamellibranch Mollusca of the Mediterranean Sea. In the first 

 volume (1791) he describes the animals of a certain number of species, 

 indicating the genera and species by the current Linnean names. 

 His anatomical descriptions and figures are excellent as far as they go, 

 and he notices the points of agreement or difference which exist 

 between the animals inhabiting the different kinds of shells. 



Those animals which have certain characters in common he 

 groups together under one generic name, and he perceives that the 

 resemblances between the animals of different Linnean genera are 

 often much greater than those between their respective shells, so 

 that he regards the animals as congeneric in spite of the differences 

 of the shells. Thus the animals of certain species of Bonax and 

 Tellina are grouped under the generic name of Peroncea, while those 

 of the chief Mediterranean species of the Linnean genera Mactra 

 and Venus are found to be so much alike, that all of them, except 

 one, can be placed in the single malacological genus to which he 

 gives the name of Callista. The exception is the animal of Venus 

 exoleta, Linn., for which he proposes the name Arthemis. 



Poli thus establishes a number of genera on the characters 

 exhibited by the animal alone, and these genera are evidently intended 

 to be quite independent of the Linnean genera which were based on 

 the shells alone. Indeed, Poli seems to have regarded the shells as 

 covers or constructions inhabited by the animal rather than as integral 

 parts of the organism. 



In the second volume (1795) he goes into specific differences, 

 mentioning and describing the various species of shells, but always 

 using the Linnean names both of genera and species : at the same 

 time he indicates to which of his genera the inhabitant of each 

 species belongs. To take an example, on p. 84 he gives a definition 

 of the Linnean genus Venus, mentioning several species as examples. 

 He comments on the wonderful variety of form, size, and sculpture 

 displayed in the shells of this genus, but observes that the animals 

 of all the species known to him exhibit great similarity, with the 



