No. 11. — A Revision of the Systematic Names employed by 
Writers on the Morphology of the Acmaeidae. 
By M. A. Willcox, Ph. D., 
% \ 
Professor of Zoology in Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 
\ 
In view of the small extent of our knowledge of the Acmaeidae, 
it would seem especially desirable that what is known should be 
rendered available by the employment of uniform terminology. 
This is, however, no less an unattained ideal in this small group 
than in other parts of the animal kingdom. It is the purpose of 
this brief paper to so arrange and compare the systematic names 
employed by various authors as to enable the reader to orientate 
himself with the least possible delay. 
From 1758 down to the early part of this century all true limpets 
appear to have been included under the generic name of Patella. 
About 1830 several investigators independently separated off from 
the remaining members of this genus a group differentiated by the 
possession of a cervical gill, or ctenidium. Eschscholtz, ’30, 1 called 
the new genus Acmaea ; Audouin and Milne Edwards (Cuvier, 
'30, p. 326) named it Tecture Gray, ’33, p. 800, termed it Lottia. 
This name was obviously of later date than the others, and Gray 
himself, ’47, p. 158, abandoned it in favor of that introduced by 
Audouin and Milne Edwards, which he seems to have Latinized 
into Tectura? As to the use of Acmaea or Tectura , scientists are 
divided. The French hold to the latter, while the rest of the 
zoological world has agreed upon Acmaea. I have not found in 
1 This reference, which I have been unable to verify, I take from Watson, 86, p. 29. 
Dali, ’71, p. 237, quotes the same work with the date of Dorpat, 1828 As he gives the 
name in its English form, as in a later paper, ’78, p. 342, he states that the “ English 
reprint,” which was published in the spring of 1830, was dated by the author Dorpat, 
.fan. 7,1828, and, finally, as Watson states that he has made unavailing search for any 
publication to which Dali’s reference could refer, I am led to the belief that Eschscholtz’s 
description did not issue from the press before 1830. This, however, would not alfect 
the question of priority, since, as Watson points out, the Ann. des sci. nat., t. 21, con¬ 
taining as it does reports of meetings held as late as Dec. 13,1830, could not have issued 
from the press before 1831. 
2 Dali, ’71, p. 239, states that he has failed to find any earlier publication of the Latin 
form. I have not been more fortunate. Marschall’s “ Nomenclator ” lists Tectura as 
published in 1830 by Audouin and Milne Edwards; but this, so far as the form of the 
word goes, is an inaccuracy, due undoubtedly to Marschall’s habit of Latinizing names. 
