PEEFACE. ix 



aside the rules defined in Linne's Phil. Botanica of 1750, and names published 

 after that date, that is, between 1750 and 1758, should not on that account alone 

 be disqualified to compete with the rules of priority, of which, as we know, there 

 are a great many. No one will advocate the idea that mere names without descrip- 

 tion or illustration should be accepted, unless they refer to a well known species 

 quoted as the type of the genus; or that such compound names as 'Catinus lactis' 

 or 'Mitra hungarica' ought to be introduced, but what reasonable objection can 

 be entertained against names of Klein, such as IJpidromus, Cithara, Lagena, 

 Avicula, Tola, Badula, and many others ? They are characterized, and one or 

 two species of each are figured in a work specially devoted to Conchology ; they 

 are designated as ' genera' and arranged in classes and sections by a man who may 

 fairly be considered the greatest conchologist of his time. This work with a little 

 alteration would in many respects have done honor to a conchologist of 20 years 

 ago. Some of the generic groups first proposed in the remarkable * Tentamen 

 Methodi Ostracologicse' were re-introduced into our systems only very recently, 

 when by a more comprehensive study of the shells and animals their correctness 

 had become re-established. 



Klein as a naturalist, possessing detailed knowledge of natural history objects 

 and the ability to classify them, was far superior to Linne, even in 1734, when 

 he published his ' Naturalis dispositio Echinodermatum,' while the 1st edition of 

 Linne's Systema Naturae only appeared in 1735. Scarcely any naturalist at the 

 present time would think of objecting to many of Klein's genera of Echinoderms, 

 why then should the conchologists do so to his genera of shells ? Even in 1753, the 

 time of Klein's publication of his Tent. Meth. Ostrac, Linne hardly possessed a 

 shadow of Klein's conchological knowledge, as may be readily seen from the 

 Museum Tessinianum, which was also published in 1753. Linne never desired that 

 his names should supersede those of other naturalists working before him, as is clear 

 from § 241 of his Fundament. Bot. Linne's name stands far too high for any 

 one to attempt to eclipse his labours in natural science, but Morch justly remarks 

 that when Linne did omit any generic names, or did not acknowledge them, it was 

 either from want of acquaintance with the published literature or from actual want 

 of knowledge of the objects; for he had, until shortly before the publication of 

 his 10th edition of the Syst. Nat., only a comparatively insignificant collection of 

 shells to consult. 



I readily admit that we cannot disregard the so-called priority of general use. 

 When a name has been used for nearly a century in all books of natural science, 



