INYKKTkr.KATK PALEONTOLOGY. 279 



fault, it' any exist, is not properly chargeable to me, but to the justly-distin- 

 guished author who originally figured and described the species as stated. 



Again. Dr. Stoliczka admits the correctness of my conclusion (published 

 at a later date than that of the paper lie criticises), that the Ringicula group 

 should stand apart as a distinct family. So it would seem, when so many 

 of my conclusions have been adopted by one writing in a manifestly unfriendly 

 spirit, that, although far from claiming perfection for my work, I have not 

 very much to fear from impartial criticism. 



Of the six sections of the included genera likewise proposed and 

 admitted by me (one of them being an old group), Dr. Stoliczka also admits 

 two, not merely as subgenera, but as lull genera. The four others, however, he 

 rejects, on the ground that there are intermediate types between them and 

 the typical sections of the genera under which 1 ranged them. Of course, 

 there are some intermediate types; if there were not — that is, if these sec- 

 tions stood entirely disconnected from the typical forms of the genera under 

 which they are placed — they would not be merely subgenera, but full genera. 

 In fact, Dr. Stoliczka admits himself two genera, Myonia (a pre-occupied 

 name), and Leucotina of Adams, which he, curiously enough, acknowledges 

 are only distinguished from each other and Actaon, by difference in the pro- 

 portional length of the spire and in the form of the body-volution, which are 

 precisely the characters that he rejects as insufficient to distinguish my 

 subgenera. I was fully aware, as any one may see by consulting my paper. 

 of the existence of the intermediate types to which he alludes, and called 

 especial attention to them as a reason for not admitting these subordinate 

 groups to higher rank than subgenera. 



One of the most positively-asserted objections, however, that Dr Sto- 

 liczka thinks he finds to my paper, is the omission of certain genera that he 

 includes in the family. In the first place, however, it will be seen that a 

 part of these have been made known since the publication of my paper, 

 while some of the others are admitted by him to have only doubtful claims 

 to a place in the family. Again, he further augments the number of genera 

 by including as a subfamily of the family Actceonid/i:, the Apliistridce — a group 

 that such high authorities as Dr. Gray, Dr. Gill, Dr. P. P. Carpenter, and 

 H. and A. Adams, to say nothing of Chenu and others, admit to the rank 

 of a distinct family; while Woodward includes most of the group in the 

 family Bullidce. 



