MOLLUSCA. 
247 
law .of priority, by which the generic part of conchological 
nomenclature has been brought into great confusion; we refeJp 
.to the protests made by I)r. Kefersiein in ^ Bronn^s Thierreieh,^ 
jp. 1029, by the Recorder in Malak. Blatt. p. 166, and by Mr. P, 
P. Carpenter in Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. xiv. p. 155. 
The law of priority has been established in Zoology in order to 
.prevent unnecessary innovations and ehanges in nomenclature 
and to give this a certain stability, but not to overthrow names 
.familiar to every zoologist and consecrated by the use of half a 
century, in favour of others proposed perhaps only a few years 
previously to their establishment by some obscure writer for 
artificial combinations which often scarcely correspond in extent, 
.and never in definition, with the modern genus. It is true that 
most of the Linnean genera are open to the same objection, but 
. they continued in general use by the later scientific naturalists, 
who restricted them gradually. The establishment of genera in 
the present sense of the word — with equal regard to the charac- 
ters of the shell and to those of the soft parts of the animal — 
commences in Conchology with Draparnaud and Lamarck. 
Even Linne and O. TV. Muller 4x4 not hesitate to unite in the 
.same genus, by a single artificial character, species which they 
knew to be diiOferent in all other respects. Therefore in this 
branch of Zoology it would be preferable not to. extend the right 
of prioritj^, in respect of generic names, to the writings of authors 
antecedent to Draparnaud and Lamarck. But if, for the sake of 
uniformity with other branches of Zoology, this boundary should 
appear to be too narrow, even the keenest partisan of the prin- 
ciple of priority ought not to carry it further back than 1758, 
the year in which the tenth edition of Linnets ^ Systema Naturae^ 
was published. Yet we find in several recent conchological 
works generic names .^hpsen on account of their priority, and 
taken from the writings of Browne, Plancus, or Columna ! Why, 
then, we should not also respect names used by Aldrovandi and 
Pliny, we are at a loss to ponceive. 
Neither the system of Linne nor that of Lamarck came into 
the world as something absolutely new; each was preceded by 
more or less similar attempts. It is important for the history 
of our science that we should examine and acknowledge these 
preparatory labours, but it is not for the interest of science that 
we should recognize them in our nomenclature, which, as Mr. 
Carpenter justly , observes, has already been brought into a most 
unsettled condition by the attempts made to do so. We will 
mention a few cases out of many, showing the eonfusion caused 
by the introduetion of these old names. Cyclostoma, Delphinula, 
,and Oliva were generic names familiar to, and acknowledged by, 
every cbnchologisfc before 1847. Now, Dr. Gray having found 
j that the name Cyclostoma was originally intended for Delphinula, 
substituted it for the latter, changing Oliva into Btrephona 
