one] about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I
conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as
assent.

Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma; [Oken]
in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing
he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it
turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus.
(30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are
Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a multitude of
subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers.
I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British Association Report" for
this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for
part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to
receive another species--though the cases are somewhat different. I should
have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into two
genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two would have been
retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when
applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and
opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two
species...

P.S.--Will you by silence give consent to the following?

Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes first.
Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate
division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in sub-
generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name Lepas
more particularly to the pedunculate division. Now, if I were to use Lepas
for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic names for