82 THE SCOTTISH NATURALIST 



assistance from Mr Macdonald, Mr Martin, Mr J. Shand, 

 Mr Patrick Duff, and Mr Murray, who are therefore, with 

 himself, the pioneers of this branch of natural history in the 

 county. The list includes fifty-two species. 



Beyond this list there has been but little published. 

 Dr Buchanan White, in his Scottish list {Scot. Nat., 1873, 

 ii., 166, 167, 208), has a few references Dr Jeffreys in the 

 British Conchology of 1862 has numerous references, and 

 Mr Rimmer in 1880 had one. 



The second list to be published was the one by myself 

 in my " Census of Scottish Land and Freshwater Mollusca " 

 {Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., 1889-90, published 1891, x., 437- 

 503), in which I give localities for forty-eight species. 



The material upon which the following list is based is 

 the work of very few observers. Indeed it is entirely 

 the work of the Rev. George Gordon and Mr William Evans, 

 with just a few additions by the Rev. J. E. Somerville, the 

 Rev. G. A. Frank Knight, and Mr Charles Oldham. 



It was a great source of pride and pleasure to me to 

 be placed in communication in 1890 with the veteran Dr 

 George Gordon, who spared no trouble to enable me to see 

 specimens both from his own collection and from the Elgin 

 Museum ; and I am indebted to my ever staunch friend, 

 Mr William Evans, F.R.S.E., for this introduction, and also for 

 the sight of the numerous shells collected by himself in the 

 higher reaches of the district, at Aviemore, Nethy Bridge, 

 Grantown, Cromdale, etc., and recorded by me in Ann. Scot. 

 Nat. Hist, for 1892 and 1893. 1 In 1887 we had a single 

 record from the Rev. J. E. Somerville; in 1910 two or three 

 from Mr Charles Oldham, F.Z.S., who never forgets the 

 Census of Mollusca, and lately I have seen one or two from 

 the Rev. G. A. Frank Knight, M.A., F.R.S.E. 



On the eve of publication of this paper I have been in 

 communication with Mr H. B. Mackintosh, F.S.A.Scot., of 



1 Some of the "Aviemore" records may really belong to Easterness ; 

 cf. footnote on p. 282 of Scot. Nat. for Nov. 1916 ; but the rule in cases 

 like this, where more precise localisation is not given, is to consider 

 records as appertaining to the vice-county in which the place named is 



itself situate. 



