CHAP. I. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MALACOLOGY. 13 



in fact^ must merge into the science of Malacology, 

 in which equal regard is paid both to the animal and 

 the shell. It is then alone that geology will be really 

 benefited. Our science will then repose upon a proper 

 and philosophic basis^ and in that capacity will be ready 

 to aid those of her sisters who may solicit her services. 

 (13.) Our notices on the Bibliography of the tes- 

 taceous Mollusca, must be very brief, and chiefly con- 

 fined to such as have a practical influence on the present 

 state of science. This brevity will be the less regretted, 

 since the subject has been so ably and fully gone 

 into by Maton and Racket, in the seventh volume of the 

 Linncean Transactions. The foundation of this and 

 every branch of zoological science was laid by the im- 

 mortal Aristotle, who well discriminated all the leading 

 groups of the typical Testacea, and was not inattentive 

 to the habits and localities of the animal inhabitants. 

 He separated the spiral univalves by the name of Mo- 

 nothyra, while he applied the term of Dithyra to the bi- 

 valves. It would have been as well if the moderns, in 

 their multifarious and complicated nomenclature, had 

 shown some little respect to the designations imposed by 

 this commanding genius on the leading groups of Xhe Mol- 

 lusca ; such defence would, at all events, have brought 

 his name more frequently before us, and reminded the 

 world how infinitely science was indebted to his labours. 

 How much superior, also, is the simplicity of genuine 

 classic names over those compounded in modern times, 

 will be best seen by comparing those bestowed upon 

 the bivalves, which are the Dithyra of Aristotle, and 

 the Malacozoaria Acephalophora of M. de Blainville. 

 It is too late, perhaps, to restore the entire nomen- 

 clature of the illustrious Stagyrite ; but in this single 

 instance we shall certainly prefer his designation of the 

 bivalve Mollusca in preference to those of the moderns.* 



* The term of Acephcila, given by Cuvier, would be by no means objec- 

 tionable, but that it sets aside the name of antiquity, and include?, more- 

 over, numerous groups which have nothing in common with the Dithyra 

 of Aristotle, except the want of a distinct head. To judge, indeed, from 

 the writings and nomenclature of the French school, it would hardly be 

 conjectured that such a man as Aristotle had ever existed. 



