76 Bibliographical Notices. 



or its technical appearance ; but this excessive subdivision annuls 

 the main object of classification, vi^hich is the massing of facts 

 under the fewest heads possible. We must not omit to commend the 

 general correctness of the press, which shows the advantage of double 

 authorship. A few typographical errors appear to have been inten- 

 tionally copied ; such as OncAidium for Oncidium, Melibe for Me- 

 liboeay Cythara for Cithara, Stobilus for Strobilus, and Tri^^Aoris for 

 Triforis. At the bottom of p. 64 a sentence is left unfinished ; it 

 should continue thus — "side, at the junction between the head and 

 abdomen, with a foot-like appendage. (Cray.)" We have also 

 noticed one paragraph which has quite escaped revision (at p. 15), 

 where six errors occur in a dozen lines*. 



The most attractive part of the work, and that of which we can 

 speak with the greatest satisfaction, is the series of illustrations by 

 that excellent engraver and veteran conchologist James D. C. Sowerby. 

 No less than 88 of these admirably-executed plates are devoted to 

 the 680 genera before referred to ; the subgenera are not figured. 

 Besides the shell of each genus, the operculum is given wherever 

 it is known, and representations of the living animals have been 

 selected, especially from the great French works of MM. Quoy and 

 Gaimard, D'Orbigny, and Eydoux and Souleyet. Many of the figures 

 are marked " original," but these are not always the best, and it is 

 to be hoped the author will take a little more pains with any he may- 

 do in futuref . It must be observed that the opercula are all drav/n 

 upside down ; and no scale is given, so that- Helix pulchella looks 

 bigger than H. rufescens, and nearly as large as H. cornu-gigantea. 



It will be necessary to examine and consider at some length the 

 nomenclature and classification employed by the authors, both on 

 account of the importance of their book and the extent to which it 

 differs from the older treatises, especially the ' British Mollusca ' of 

 Messrs. Forbes and Hanley, so lately issued from the same press, and 

 which has deservedly taken the highest place as a work of reference 

 and authority. 



On comparing the generic names employed by Messrs. H. and 

 A. Adams with the terminology in general use, we find half the prin- 

 cipal names (of the univalves) changed, on the pretence of priority ! 

 We say pretence, because a very slight examination would have 

 shown that scarcely any of these names were accompanied by descrip- 

 tions, or otherwise entitled to the adoption of conchologists. 



The authors have* judiciously omitted dates, having doubtless 

 found them a ** delusion and a snare;" but the omission of refer- 

 encesy in so large and pretentious a work, is, to say the least, unusual. 



* Thetis for Tethys ; thecidicola for tethydicola ; Baer for Baer ; Lingri- 

 citula for Linguatula ; Pinnotheros for Pinnotheres ; and Phospuga for 

 Phosphuga. At p. 252, Chilinia " Cepuelca " and " pulchra " appear to be 

 misprints for " Tehueleha" and " Puelcha." 



t Some of these figures are obviously taken from specimens in spirits ; 

 such as the Argonauta Oiveni, pi. 2, in which the sail-shaped arm is turned 

 inside out ; Tornatella solidula, pi. 56. f. 2 ; and Pfeifferia micans, pi. 72. 

 f. 11. 



