REAUMUR. 503 



of a few species by Willis, Redi, Harderus, and Swammer- 

 daai, however good, had no influence on conchology, while 

 those of Lister, are epochal.* He was fully aware too of 

 the importance of system in this study, but he had not 

 critically examined its real objects and use, and his classifica- 

 tion, though elaborate, clahns no praise of superiority. The 

 habitat affords the character for his primary divisions or 

 books, hence, shells arc divided into the land, fresh-water, 

 marine bivalve, and marine univalve classes ; and the mode 

 in which these are subdivided, more resembles the synoptical 

 tables, which the French botanists now frequently prefix to 

 their floras, constructed without any regard to the affinities 

 of the objects they approximate, and solely intended to hunt 

 down a species, than what is usually understood by a system 

 in natural history. f 



So far as we can collect, the manner in which the shell is 

 foimed, and its relation to the snail, occupied no part of 

 Lister's investigations ; but previous to his decease the solu- 

 tion of the problem was discovered by the illustrious Reau- 

 mur. | No experimental inqviiry had hitherto been made on 

 the subject, and the remarks in reference to it in concho- 

 logical writers were scattered, vague, and hypothetical ; while 

 the opinion of better informed physiologists appears to have 



* D'Argcnville's character of Lister stands in a harsh contrast to that we 

 have o-iven. " On pent ici avancer hardiment que Lister, par les variations 

 de sa" met'hode, a plus embrouille Thistoire des Coquillages qu'il ne I'a 

 eclaircie "— Li7/io/o^'ie, p. 22. Again,— "On peut dn-e que personne n a 

 jette tant de confusion dans I'histoire des Coquillages que cet auteur, d ail- 

 leurs bon physicicn ct grand me'decin."— Conc/ij//<o/o^«e, p. 114.— It is clear 

 that D'Argenville was a mere amateur, and had no idea of a naturalist be- 

 vond his capacity of ticketing a cabinet. Da Costa has entered into a 

 laboured defence of Lister asjainst this attack, which, however unnecessary, 

 has atforded him an opportunity of giving some curious particulars relative 

 to Li'itcr's great work of plates. See his Elements of Conchology, p. 28— 

 37 Maton and Racket have unjustly praised D'Argenville for modesty, in 

 evidence of which they tell us that liis work was at first anonymous ; but, 

 thou"-h his name does not appear, it is evident from the dedication that no 

 concealment was intended or made ; and we may very fairly question the 

 modesty of a silly author, who speaks of his own work as " un monument 

 e'ternel " It is pleasing to read Dcshayes' estimate of Lister's character 

 and labours after this most injurious pliilippic of D'Argenville— TraiteElem. 

 i. 42, &c. ; sec also Swainson's Discourse on the Study ot ^at. History, 



t '" Had Lister but added an index of the numerous sections, parts, 

 and chapters, to his work, his shells would be very easily U-aced, though 

 they seem more confusedly placed than in any author. —Da Costa, 



Elem. 82. . , r, •n i a • * » 



:j: " De la Formation ct derAcroisscment des CoquiUes des Animaux tant 

 terrestres qu'aquatiqucs, soit de mer soit de riviere," in M^m. de I'Acad. 

 Roy. des So. 1709. 



