RECENT MOLLUSCA OF AUGUSTUS ADDISON GOULD 13 



of the new species in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural 

 History as fast as he could describe them. The scope of the work 

 was limited by the Library Committee's decision that nothing should 

 be printed that was not new. The Committee further stipulated 

 that the entire work should be an American production, unaided by 

 European scholars. 



According to P. P. Carpenter (1863, p. 529), "Gould had access 

 only to that part of the collection which happened to be on view 

 during the brief visit that his professional duties allowed when visiting 

 the capital; and that his request to be allowed to take doubtful shells 

 to Europe for identification was refused." Nevertheless, the corre- 

 spondence quoted by Haskell (1942, p. 75) clearly indicates that 

 Gould had the major portion of the shells in Boston although, on a 

 subsequent visit to Washington, he located an additional 150 species 

 to describe. 



Evidently Wilkes' antagonism toward Couthouy continued un- 

 abated since he wished that no credit be given to Couthouy in the 

 report. The following excerpt from a letter by Gould to Senator 

 Tappan on October 15, 1845, appears to be an answer to a demand 

 by Wilkes, through Tappan, to ehminate Couthouy's name in the 

 report. With this assumption in mind, the paragraph does not damn 

 Couthouy with faint praise, as it seems to do, but is instead a subtle 

 attempt to give him as full credit as possible without Gould himself 

 incurring the wrath of Wilkes. 



Though we may withhold his name entirely it cannot be concealed 

 that he was actively engaged for at least one year. An entire exclusion 

 of his name would seem vindictive, and will give him good ground so to 

 represent it. Whereas I find the instances in which there would be any 

 occasion to allude to him (among the shells) so very few that it would 

 tell rather discreditably than creditably for him — His Journal is inter- 

 esting and Captain Wilkes has drawn largely from it [a curious statement, 

 since we are led to believe that Couthouy refused to turn his journal over 

 to Wilkes, and that Gould was unable to locate it]; but his descriptions 

 of new objects are very few, and written in a less precise and concise 

 style than I should like to publish, and the names he has applied will 

 very few of them stand and none of them need bear his name proper. 

 After leaving Cape Horn he evidently attempted very little at descrip- 

 tions. My own feeling would be that while he may have forfeited all 

 right to the good will of those concerned in the expedition it would not 

 be dishonest and certainly would be magnanimous, to allude to his 

 labors wherever they have been important. If we avail ourselves of facts 

 which we should not otherwise have at hand, should we under the 

 catholic ethics of science which knows no partialities, hesitate to ac- 

 knowledge them? This you will allow is a charitable view of the sub- 

 ject — and will it not so heap coals of fire on his head and while it does 

 us no harm, may save us much trouble (Haskell, 1942, p. 74). 



