ail the available information and in this work hâve been very greatly assisted by the valuable 

 contributions of Woodring ^), Cox "") and Stewart ^), whose work on palaeontological side has 

 materially lightened the labours for the workers on the récent forms. 



I hâve, following the ruling of the International Commission of Nomenclature (Opinion 96), 

 accepted Muséum Boltenianum*) names as valid, but the author of this work was undoubt- 

 edly P. F. Rôding and not Bolten. The work may hâve been done by Bolten in collaboration 

 with Rôding, an accomplished conchologist, in the same way as Cuming asked such authorities as 

 Reeve, Hanley, Adams, Pfeiffer, Romer, Frauenfeld, Deshayes and others to name and arrange 

 his collections. In any case the work, even in the first édition, was published after Bolten's 

 death and, as is clear from the préface, the literature références etc., which alone hâve made 

 the acceptance of the work possible, were the work of Rôding. There is thus no justification 

 for crediting Bolten with any part of the work, and I hâve, therefore, cited Rôding as the 

 author of ail gênera and species that hâve to be accepted from Muséum Boltenianum. 



A similar case is that of a number of species of différent families the authorship of which 

 has usually been ascribed to Deshayes. As has been pointed out by Tomlin °) there can be no 

 question that thèse species were described and named by Deshayes, but his descriptions of the 

 species — for, in no case were any of the species figured — which were published in the 

 "Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London", were not actually issued till after Reeve's 

 descriptions and illustrations of several of thèse species in the "Conchologia Iconica". The issues 

 of the "Proceedings" for the years 1830 — 1858 were irregular, and the annual volumes for the 

 différent years were not actually printed till a year or two after the real date. In the following 

 account I hâve taken the actual dates of issue rather than the years of the volumes. Full détails 

 of the dates of issue for the several volumes are to be found in the volume of the " Proceedings" 

 for the year 1893, pp. 436 — 440. 



In the case of the old édition of Martini & Chemnitz's "Conchylien Cabinet" the first 

 eleven volumes are certainly not binomial, and none of the names in thèse volumes can be 

 accepted as valid. The twelfth volume by Schubert & Wagner published in 1829 is binomial, 

 but it is doubtful whether in view of its being only a part of a non-binomial work, it can be 

 accepted as valid. Similarly Schrôter's ^) "Index" of the first ten volumes issued in 17S8, though 

 binomial to a great extent, is not consistently so throughout, and cannot be accepted. In référence 

 to the new séries of the " Conchylien Cabinet", which was issued under the editorship of several 

 distinguished authorities, it may be noted that this work was issued in several volumes with the 

 différent monographs numbered as Abtheilungen of the various volumes. The dates of public- 

 ation of the différent Lieferungen were not printed, and the date of publication of the last 

 Lieferung, which is printed on the cover, has usually been taken as the year of issue of the 



1) Woodring, W. P. — Miocène MoUusks from Bowden, Jamaica. Pelecypods and Scaphopods. Carnegie Inst. Publications 

 NO 366 (1925). 



2) Cox, L. R. — Neogene and Quarternary MoUusca from the Zanzibar Protectorate. Rept. Palaeontol. Zanzibar (1927). 



3) Stewart, R. B. — Gabb's California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamellibranchs. Spécial Publications Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Philadelphia, N" 3 (1930). 



4) Rôding, P. F. — Muséum Boltenianum (1798). 



5) Tomlin, J. R. le B. — Journ. Conch., XVIl, p. 134 (1924). 



6) ScHRÔTER, J. S. — Vollstandiges Alphabetisches Namen Register ûber aile Zehn Bande Systematischen Conchylienkabinets. 

 (Niirnberg, 1788). 



