1919.] E. W. Vredenburg : Shells of the family Doliidœ. 169 



the names capriciously bestowed by Adanson, cannot nevertheless lay claim to the 

 right of priority such as desired by Mr. Deshayes." 



Finally, in Tryon's great work, the Manual of Conchology, the interprétation 

 adopted in the case under consideration is arbitrary in the extreme : D. maculatum, 

 Lamarck, D. fimbriatum, Sowerby, and D. costatum, Menke are regarded as mere 

 varieties (or even less than varieties) of a single species for which the much older 

 specific names minjac, Adanson, dolium, Linnaeus, and tessellatum, Bruguière are 

 rejected under the pretext that some uncertainty remains as to the particular variety 

 to which they might have been originally applied. If the various forms really did 

 represent mere varieties, it is obvious that the oldest name published would be that 

 of the species, and that the varieties would be named according to the precedence 

 in date recognised for each precise identification. Furthermore, not only does Tryon 

 reject these names on a pretext which, from his point of view, cannot be considered 

 valid, but, of the three other names that are allowed to stand, it is not the oldest, 

 Lamarck's maculatum which is adopted as the name of the species, but Menke's 

 costatum which is certainly newer by several years than either of the two others. 



The foregoing lengthy discussion was unavoidable in order to arrive at some 

 definite conclusion regarding the names to be adopted for the two species recognised 

 in the present work. It should now appear sufficiently evident that the two names 

 to be adopted are Dolium, tessellatum, Bruguière 1789, and Dolium maculatum, 

 Deshayes 1845. 



For those who prefer archaeological erudition, however inconvenient, to the 

 more familiar nomenclature of long-established usage and tradition, there seems to 

 be no doubt that either Dolium minjac (Adanson) 1757, or Dolium dolium (L. ) [ Hud- 

 desford] 1770, is the name that should be adopted for the shell above described as 

 Dolium maculatum, Deshayes. The adoption of such a course must carry with 

 it the usual warning that the pseudo-scientific security attained by the archaeo— 

 logical method has too often proved a delusion, for there is always the risk of an indus- 

 trious bibliographer discovering some forgotten monograph of earlier date than the 

 one relied upon as final. In any case, even as regards the substitution of Dolium 

 dolium to Dolium maculatum, this would be somewhat of a retrospective interpreta- 

 tion, for no one who had not made an exhaustive study of the shells under considera- 

 tion could recognise which species is meant by Lister's illustration. Neither the 

 figure nor the description of Lister nor the identification of Huddesford are of any 

 real help in identifying the species, and it is necessary to come down to the period of 

 Deshayes to obtain at last a sure method of recognising it. 



If the Lamarckian appellation Dolium maculatum be definitely adopted for one 

 of these species, it may perhaps be objected that to follow this specific name with 

 " Deshayes " as the author, as has been done in the present work, is not in accordance 

 with the recognised rules of nomenclature. The prevailing custom of appending to 

 the name of a species, whenever mentioned, the name of the earliest author who has 

 made use of such a specific name is in many cases of little scientific value. The 

 object of this apposition is to avoid confusion, the mention of the author's name pur- 



