282 LECTURES ON MOLLUSCA. 



uralists, that all who are disposed to train their eyes and set to work 

 can easily find the means for useful service. 



The objects of the Smithsonian Institution are both the increase and 

 the diffusion of knowledge. So very much confusion is constantly arising 

 from wrongly or uncertainly named specimens, that those who are not' 

 prepared to increase existing knowledge can make themselves very 

 useful simply by diffusing the knowledge of others. On comparing 

 together the American shells given me by a number of accurate and 

 trustworthy American naturalists, I find myself considerably bewil- 

 dered, not merely by the wrong names which are given, but by names 

 given as by Lea, Say, and other distinguished authors, which contra- 

 dict themselves, and therefore cannot be depended upon. These diffi- 

 culties are to be met by the copious diffusion of specimens named from 

 types. All that can thus be vouched for have a peculiar value, espe- 

 cially in a foreign country : and if collectors will merely amass a 

 multitude of specimens, and see to their being named by those who 

 possess the typical knowledge, the Smithsonian Institution will see to 

 their being made available for the purposes of science. It is not neces- 

 sary for the uses of science that the name given should ultimately stand 

 as the correct one. Whether, e. g., among the Unios, a name of Lea 

 or of Rafmesque be permanently chosen, matters little. What we 



want to know is that such a shell is really the Unio of Lea, or the 



Unio of Conrad. When it is known accurately what each author 



means by his own descriptions, his successors have something tangi- 

 ble to work upon. At present a large proportion of every author's 

 time is taken up with trying to find out, and that under ordinary cir- 

 cumstances with necessary errors, what his predecessors mean. If 

 this is true even of the most careful writers, such as C. B. Adams, 

 Conrad, &c , what can be said of the imagination of Rafmesque. 



As to questions of generic nomenclature, it is hoped that the present 

 climax of confusion will make the necessity felt of agreeing on some 

 common basis. At present some writers endeavor to follow the rules 

 of the British and American associations ; others avowedly set them 

 at defiance. To revive the careless work of old writers, to the upset- 

 ting of those whose useful toil has been recognized by general accept- 

 ance, appears worse than folly. If any one will compare the names of 

 the Messrs. Adams and of Dr. Gray, who profess to follow the same 

 rule of absolute priority, it will be found that ancient genera were so 

 ill defined that even those who most desire to understand them, have 

 interpreted them quite differently. Under these circumstances, it is 

 well for ardent young naturalists not necessarily to adopt all the inter- 

 pretations now offered of old names, from the bewitching love of nov- 

 elty ; but to remember that use and accuracy are matters far more 

 important than supposed justice to men whose works might as well 

 have been forgotten. Every naturalist ought to start with a feeling 

 that it is of no consequence what becomes of his own names and his 

 own reputation, if the " increase and diffusion of knowledge among 

 men : ' is promoted by his own retirement ; and what he thus feels for 

 himself, he should be willing to accord to those whose works are as 

 inaccessible as they have proved to be injuriously confusing. In ar- 



