Hawaiian Conus — Kohn 
369 
Mrs. A. M. Harrison, W. C. Ross, and C. S. 
Weaver. Valuable assistance rendered by 
Charles E. Cutress in preparation of the color 
photographs is gratefully acknowledged. 
Most of the work was carried out at the Os- 
born Zoological Laboratory, Yale University, 
during tenure of a fellowship from the Na- 
tional Science Foundation. 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
An excellent bibliographical account and 
collation of the major works in which species 
of Conus were described is given by Hanna 
and Strong (1949). Except where otherwise 
noted, the collations cited therein are fol- 
lowed in the present paper. 
Catalogue of the Portland Museum. 1786. 
This catalogue was published anonymously, 
but its authorship is usually attributed to 
George Humphrey (Dali, 1921). The names 
of new species are attributed to Daniel 
Solander in the volume, and the same usage 
is followed in the present paper. A valuable 
discussion of this catalogue is given by Wil- 
kins (1955), who also presents cogent reasons 
for attributing the names to Humphrey, 
J. G. Bruguiere. Encyclopedie Methodique. His- 
toire Naturelle des Vers. 1792. Many previously 
undescribed species of Conus were named and 
carefully described in this work. However, 
the authorship to be attributed to these 
names has been a matter of dispute almost 
since the volume appeared. In the volume, 
Bruguiere attributes the names and Latin diag- 
noses of species to C. H. Hwass (p. 598). 
Bruguiere states that he himself wrote the 
descriptions and the "additional” synonymy 
(see Clench, 1942: 3). New specific names 
are published in the volume as, e.g. Conus 
catus Hwass.” 
However, many subsequent writers (La- 
marck, 1810; Dillwyn, 1817; Kiener, 1845- 
1850; Wood, 1856; Sowerby, 1857-1858; 
Schaufuss, 1869; Iredale, 1929; Tomlin, 1937; 
Cotton, 1945; Hanna and Strong, 1949; Hi- 
rase, 1954; and Kira, 1955) have cited such 
species as, e.g. Conus catus Bmgmhst.'' Other 
writers (Blainville, 1818; Reeve, 1843-1844; 
Adams and Adams, 1858; Weinkauff, 1874; 
Smith, 1879; Tryon, 1884; Fischer, 1887; von 
Martens and Thiele, 1903; Tinker, 1952; and 
Morris, 1952) have cited the names as they 
appear in Bruguiere (1792). A third group of 
writers (Dautzenberg, 1937; Clench, 1942; 
Mermod, 1947; and Dodge, 1953) has cited 
such names as, e.g., '' Conus catus Hwass in 
Bruguiere.” 
Application of the PJegles of the Interna- 
tional Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature (ICZN), and later provisions and 
clarifications of the Regies, does not lead to 
an unequivocal solution to this problem. In 
the decisions of the ICZN meeting in Paris 
in 1948, it was recommended (Bull. Zool. 
Nomencl. 4: 565-566, 1950) that "where in a 
book or paper written by one author (say 
author 'A’) it is clearly stated that the descrip- 
tion of one or more specified taxonomic units 
there named has been prepared exclusively by 
some other author (say author 'C’), the name 
or names in question are to be attributed to 
author 'C, not to author 'A’. The name of 
the taxonomic unit so described and named 
is to be cited by later authors as having been 
published by 'C in A’.” 
It is apparent from the remarks of Bruguiere 
(1792: 598; see also Clench, 1942: 3) that the 
descriptions of the species were not prepared 
exclusively by Hwass, although the names 
and brief Latin diagnoses were. It is, how- 
ever, the present author’s opinion that Hwass ’s 
contribution is sufficient to justify attributing 
authorship of the names to him. This view is 
strengthened by the more recent further clari- 
fication of Article 21 (Copenhagen Decisions, 
1953: 58-59), which states that "the rule set 
out on pages 565-566 of vol. 4 of the 
BULLETIN should be qualified in such a 
way as to make it clear that it applies only 
where the book or paper concerned contains 
a clear indication that not only the name in 
question was proposed by some author other 
than that by whom the book or paper was 
written but also that the indication, defini- 
