1919.] E. W. Vredenburg : Shells of the family Doliidce. 167 



stances unfavourable or even hostile to scientific research. Lamarck has followed 

 Bruguière in reinstating d' Argen ville' s genus Dolium. It may be noticed that, 

 in the generic diagnosis, Lamarck has introduced a clause " labro per tot am longi- 

 tudinem dentato vel crenato," so that, if it were desired to adhere strictly to 

 Lamarck's definition, the name Dolium, s. str. would be applicable to the shells which 

 it is proposed to classify as Eudolium, rather than to those classified with Dolium 

 galea. As however Dolium galea is the species first mentioned, it has been decided 

 that it is the type of the genus, and although it would be geologically and histori- 

 cally more logical to reserve the name Dolium, s. str. for the forms with denticulate 

 labrum, yet there is no distinct advantage to be gained in altering an established 

 usage. 



In defining his Dolium maculatum, Lamarck has transcribed the synonymy of 

 Bruguière's Buccinum tessellatum, similarly differing from Linnaeus' and Gmelin's 

 synonymy of Buccinum dolium in admitting the appositiveness of only two of the 

 figures from Martini's work. But for this correction, copied from Bruguière, the 

 synonymy of Lamarck's Dolium maculatum is as hopeless a medley as that of Lin- 

 naeus' Buccinum dolium or of Bruguière's Buccinum tessellatum. From the synony- 

 my, there is no reason why Lamarck's Dolium maculatum should represent a different 

 species from Bruguière's Buccinum tessellation or Dolium tessellatum also mentioned 

 in the synonymy; no reason being given for superseding the name established by 

 Bruguière. The specific name used by Linnaeus is set aside by Lamarck presumably 

 for the same reason as by Bruguière, that is on account of the re-establishment of 

 the generic name Dolium, to avoid a repetition. The description given by Lamarck 

 runs as follows: "testa ovatoglobosa, ventricoso-inflata, tenui, alba; costis convexis, 

 distantibus, fulvo aut rufo maculatis ; interstitiis stria prominula divisis." The last 

 clause may indicate that it is especially the shell above described as Dolium macula- 

 tum, Deshayes which Lamarck had in view, though, without any account of the 

 development of the shell, it is insufficient to clear up the uncertainties of the syn- 

 onymy. In conclusion, Dolium maculatum,, Lamarck is just as uncertain as Buccinum 

 dolium, Linnaeus. 



The next important publication dealing with this subject is probably posterior 

 to the one of Lamarck above analysed, being the genus Dolium in Sowerby's 

 " Genera,'" which presumably appeared in 1823. It contains an admirable figure of 

 a shell which Sowerby has called Dolium fimbriatum, and which tallies in every 

 respect with Bruguière's description. For those who, following the example of 

 Küster, reject the specific names minjac and tessellatum, it is evident that the shell 

 in question must be known as Dolium fimbriatum, Sowerby. 



In 1830, seven or eight years later therefore than the publications of Lamarck 

 and of Sowerby, Menke, in the second edition of the catalogue of his private collec- 

 tion, mentioned, as a new species, a Dolium costatum, with no other reference than 

 Martini's figure 1082, therefore, one of the two figures specially selected by Bruguière 

 as representing his Buccinum tessellatum, and by Lamarck as representing his Dolium 

 maculatum. The date 1828 given by Tryon for this species is apparently incorrect, 



