220 Mr. Sowerby's Notes on Mr. Gray's Editions 



The next subject that particularly attracts my attention, is No. 25*, 

 CyprcBa Damay which is the identical species described by yourself in 

 the third volume of the Zoological Journal, under the name of C. nivosa. 

 It is indeed lamentable to observe how completely Mr. Gray suffers his 

 fondness for Mr. Perry's absurdities to overcome his better judgment ; for, 

 thinking he has identified your C. nivosa with a miserable figure in Perry 

 of C. Vitellus, under the name of C, Dama, he has adopted that name, 

 and given yours of C. nivosa as a synonym ; after which he observes, 

 " This shell has many characters in common with C. Vitellus, and indeed 

 " may be simply a variety of that shell, like the diseased variety of C. 

 " Arahica often found in collections." I will not take up your time, or 

 that of the readers of this Journal, by an extended comparison of the 

 two species, it is sufficient for me to state that, in my opinion, no two 

 species can be more truly distinct than your C. nivosa and the well- 

 known C. Vitellus ; that they have scarcely any characters in common ; 

 and that C. nivosa may be readily known by its sublateral dorsal line,* 

 by its wanting the lateral sand-like lines so strongly characteristic of C. 

 Vitellus, and by its remarkably produced anterior extremity. C. nivosa 

 ought, therefore, to stand as a well-estabhshed and perfectly distinct 

 species. 



Mr. Gray's No. 25**, Cyprcea Camelopardalis, next requires notice, 

 and this is another species for which Mr. Gray has adopted Perry's name 

 in opposition to that cited from the MSS. of a scientific gentleman ; it is 



and pretenders as any other science or profession. And were we to adopt 

 the rule of indiscriminately quoting every writer as authority, on the sole 

 ground of his having written and published, we should frequently confer upon 

 the mere compiler, or the flippant intruder whose aim is to anticipate the dis- 

 coveries of others, that credit which is due alone to the true labourer in the 

 science. On our own part we do not hesitate in declaring our general inten- 

 tion of endeavouring, as far as our influence extends, to draw a line of distinc- 

 tion between the man of education and knowledge and the ignorant pretender. 

 Our judgment, in short, in regard to the authority of a work shall be founded, 

 not upon its date, but upon the talent, the industry, and the information of 

 itsauthour. Ed, 



♦ The edges of the mantle in C. Vitellus do not approach each other suffici- 

 ent! v to form a dorsal line. 



