Every word was carefully written down by myself from the mouths of the natives.

In a communication to the Royal Society of Victoria in the year 1896,1 I gave a comprehensive description of the initiation ceremonies of the Anēwan, Banbai and other tribes Again in 1897, I contributed a paper to the Royal Society of New South Wales,' in which I described the Anewan laws of marriage and descent, with lists of their totems. On account of the two articles referred

to, it has not now been thought necessary to repeat the subjects therein dealt with.

1 "The Burbung of the New England Tribes," Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria, Vol

ix, N. S., pp. 120-136.

"The Totemic Divisions of Australian Tribes," Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S. Wales, Vol. xxxi, pp. 168-170.

ON SOME NAMES (CHIEFLY LINNEAN) OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS ERRONEOUSLY PAIRED IN SYNONYMY.

BY MARCHESE ANTONIO DI GREGORIO.

(Received April 15, 1903.)

It is well known that a great many new genera have been made for the old Linnean species. One of the chief creators of generic names was Lamarck, the great naturalist. After him a large number of authors have proposed many new genera for the Linnean species. The same is true, also, for many species proposed by ancient authors that have been related in synonymy, when a new genus has been created for the same species.

In my note, "Intornorno ad alcuni nomi di conchiglie linneane," published in the Bulletin of the Italian Malacological Society (Vol. x, 1884), I have proposed to retain the original Linnean names for PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XLII. 173. R. PRINTED AUG. 7, 1903.

the species, though this may have been chosen to denote the genus. For instance, the name of Mya vulsella L. (as a new genus has been created) has been changed in Vulsella lingulata. The name of Ostrea malleus L. has been changed in Malleus vulgaris Lamk. I have proposed in similar cases to retain the original name of the species, which I believe is the more correct. So I have proposed to call these species Vulsella vulsella (L.), Malleus malleus (L.).

My proposition has been accepted by many malacologists. Indeed now instead of Plicatula ramosa Lamk. (=Sponotilus plicatus L.), it is better to employ the name Plicatula plicata (L.) sp. Instead of Lima squamosa Lamk, (=Ostrea lima L.) the name of Lima lima (L.) sp.; instead of Hippopus maculatus Lamk, (=Ostrea hippopus (L.)) the name of Hippopus hippopus (L.) sp., etc.

I think that this modification might be conveniently adopted also for plants as well as animals. I believe, for instance, it is much better to say Tymnus tymnus than Scomber tymnus or Tymnus vulgaris. For the same reason I believe it to be much more correct to say Malus malus instead of Pyrus malus or Malus communis.

What I have said for the names of Linné, is also applicable to the names of other authors which have been changed, because recent authors have chosen the name of the species as a generic name.

I call the attention of zoologists and botanists to this interesting innovation. I hope that it will be adopted for plants and for all animals, as it has been for the mollusks.