168 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vol. VII, 



for, according to Küster, the species was established not in the first edition of Menke's 

 catalogue (published in 1828 and not available in India), but only in the second. 

 The adoption of the same name for a similar shell by Deshayes in 1845 is a coinci- 

 dence, as Deshayes was not acquainted with Menke's catalogue. Küster' s remark to 

 the effect that "for a long time previous to Deshayes, Menke had recognised this 

 species, fortunately under the same name, and had entered it as such in the second 

 edition of his Synopsis together with a diagnosis in the appendix," is partly incorrect, 

 for Menke never seems to have described his Dolium costatum : the diagnosis in the 

 appendix referring not to Dolium costatum,, but to a Dolium tenue, from the coasts 

 of Syria, rightly considered by Tryon to be an immature specimen of Dolium 

 galea. 



The first definite information subsequent to Bruguière's description and Sower- 

 by's figure, that we can gather regarding the shells under consideration, is that 

 contained in the Xth Volume, published in 1845, of Deshayes' new edition of 

 Lamarck's " Animaux sans Vertèbres" A truly reliable character is at last noticed 

 by means of which Dolium maculatum- can be identified, namely the inferior number 

 of its primary ribs as compared with Dolium tessellatum, Bruguière, for which Des- 

 hayes adopts the specific name minjac, Adanson. It is only, therefore, from the 

 date of Deshaye's work that Dolium maculatum can truly be recognised as a distinct 

 species. As already mentioned, Dolium costatum is described by Deshayes as dis- 

 tinct from his Dolium minjac, the agreement in name with Menke, resulting, as above 

 noticed, from a coincidence. 



Reeve, in 1849, in his monograph adorned with the superb illustrations of 

 Sowerby, has adopted the three species established by Deshayes, for one of which he 

 adopts the specific name fimbriatum, Sowerby, tessellatum, Bruguière being rejected on 

 the unfounded plea that it refers both to D. fimbriatum and to D. maculatum, while 

 the specific name minjac mentioned in the synonymy is rejected on account of its 

 non-latinity. The short explanatory notices contain some inaccuracies, as in the 

 statement, reproduced from Deshayes, that Dolium fimbriatum is characterised ' ' by 

 the outer lip becoming strongly fimbriated on arriving at maturity," just the opposite 

 of what really takes place as had already been observed by Bruguière. In the 

 beautifully illustrated monograph published in 1857 as part of the Revision of Martini 

 and Chemnitz' Conchilien-Cabinet, Küster has unreservedly accepted Reeve's con- 

 clusion, also including a fourth species, Dolium ampullaceum, Philippi, and adding a 

 fifth, Dolium lischkeanum. The figure and diagnosis of Dolium ampullaceum are 

 merely reproduced from Philippi's work, the shell, of which only a dorsal view is 

 given, evidently representing a large specimen of D. tessellatum, Bruguière. Dolium 

 lischkeanum is founded on adult specimens of the same species, in which the aper- 

 tural thickening is therefore reduced, according to the adult characteristics already 

 so clearly defined by Bruguière. The name established by Bruguière is rejected for 

 the same unfounded reason as by Reeve, its supposed applicability to two different 

 species. The reason alleged for rejecting the specific name minjac is not without 

 some just foundation: " Without necessarily ignoring all the rules of nomenclature, 



