Mr. S. P.Woodward on the Evils of Increasing Synonyms. 37 



This was a simple matter of fact, admitting of no reply ; but 

 Mr. Jeffreys has thought proper to raise a number of points, 

 wholly irrelevant to the subject, and most unpleasant to enter 

 upon. The inaccuracy of his statements can only be accounted 

 for by great haste and a very bad memory. 



He says he had the pleasure of giving me the specimens on 

 which my observations were made — although I had distinctly 

 stated, in print, that I received them from Mr. Damon. This . 

 makes it necessary to add that when I applied to Mr. Jeffreys for 

 specimens, he informed me he had sent them all to Mr. Damon ; 

 and he may perhaps remember that when — after I had shown 

 him the specimens obtained from Mr. Damon — he brought out 

 a boxful of these tiny shells, I asked him " how he could have 

 told me he had none ? ^' He then offered me some more speci- 

 mens, expressing a wish (as I understood) that, in justice to 

 Mr. Damon, nothing should be said about them. 



Further on, Mr. Jeffreys makes me say I had previously seen 

 no other Scissurellce, &c. Forgetting that I showed him the 

 finest species he had ever seen — S, angulata, Loven ; that I told 

 him I had found Scissurella in sand from New Zealand ; and 

 that in the British Museum (to go no further) there is the 

 type of S. Bertheloti, D'Orb., in a collection we had both lately 

 been examining. Besides, the question was not about species : 

 the specific identity of Mr. Jeffreys' shell with S. elegans, D'Orb., 

 was known and admitted by himself, from the first. 



A third statement is to the effect that he consulted D'Orbigny's 

 memoir at the time 1 showed him Philippics and Sowerby's ob- 

 servations. 1 cian only say, that more than a month afterwards 

 (when the paper on '' Schismope '' was gone to the ' Annals,' 

 though not printed) he informed me he had not seen the memoir 

 in question. 



There are several other assertions which it is unnecessary to 

 follow, as they have neither personal nor scientific interest. 

 Perhaps Mr. Jeffreys thinks he is letting himself down easily, 

 and I should be sorry to dispel the illusion. 



I will only add a few words of an accomplished botanist, lately 

 quoted by Dr. Carpenter : — " The naturahst who has the true 

 interest of science at heart, not only feels that the thrusting of 

 an uncalled-for synonym into the nomenclature of science is 

 an exposure of his own ignorance and deserves censure, but that 

 a wider range of knowledge and a greater depth of study are 

 required, to prove those dissimilar forms to be identical, which 

 any superficial observer can separate by words and a name." 

 1 am, Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, 



S. P. Woodward. 



Bamsbury, June 1856. 



