31 



Helfinerseiiia, Pander. ? OhoUdce. 1861. 



Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersburg, iii, p. 47, pi. ii, f. 2, a-q. Type 

 H.jer6inpjewi, Pander, 1. c. (mel. ieremieffi). Not seen, 



HefillliiltholitMa§, Linn6. Invertebrata. 1760. 



Syst. Nat. ed. xi, ii, p. 162. Subclass inv. foss. cont. Vermes foss. 

 incl. some bracbiopods. 



HeBMia§terla§, Herrmanusen. {Incertce sedis.) 1 847. 



Index Gen. Mai. i, p. 524, as of Eaf. (=IIemisterias, E.) 



lteBiii|)i*iosiite§, Agassiz. Stropliomenidce. 1847. 



Nom. Zool. Index, p. 511 ; lapsus ( = Hemipronites, Pand.). 



HeBniprOBiflteis, Pander. Strophomenida:. 1 830. 



Beitr. Geogn. Euss. Eeicbes, pp. 71, 74, t. iii, f. 14 (generic only). Sec- 

 tion or subgenus of Klifamionites, fully described ; first sp, p. 74, H. tumida, 

 Pand. t. xviii, f. 6, a-d. (Sil.) (= Klitambonites, Pander.) 



The relative application of this name and the names Strep- 

 torliyncJms, Leptcena, tStrophomena, Plectambonites, and Sip- 

 parionyx is involved in more obscurity, and has been more 

 variously regarded by differeut authors, than almost any 

 other case of a similar nature in the annals of malacological 

 nomenclature. This has been still further complicated by 

 the uncertainty which still exists in regard to the internal 

 characters of most of the species, and the different values 

 assigned by authors to these characters when they have . 



been made known. 



A reference to the various names above cited will disclose 

 the views taken by several authors, and further elucidate 

 the historical account which follows, when it may not appear 

 sufficiently full. 



In 1848, Bronn, in the Iftdex Paleontologicus, i, p. 585, refers 

 nineteen of Pander's twenty-one nominal specie^to '■'•Orthis " 

 hemipronites, von Buch (Beitr. Best. Gebirgs-Form. Eussl. 

 1840, p. 20), including Pander's first or typical species H. 

 tumida, the specific name of which, of course, is entitled to 

 priority without regard to its generic aflSliations. If this be 

 correct, it would certainly seem, irrespective of other consid- 

 erations, as if S. tumida (or lieinipronites) was entitled to be 

 considered as Pander's type. In case the genus Hemipro- 

 nites, as typified by H. tumida, be synonymous with some 

 previously named group, there would still remain H. alata 



