72 NATURAL SCIENCE. January. 1897. 



besides which, the matter has been fully justified in two cases by the finding since of 

 other specimens. Further justification for naming single specimens is afforded, 

 when they are so clearly differentiated from well known types, as in A. Lanceolata, 

 page 105, vol. xhx. With regard to C. Rugosa and C. robusta, even if they should 

 ultimately be proved to be of the same species, it would be obviously unfair to delete 

 the species in the absence of perfect specimens. 



As " H. B." ought to know, there is great difference between Anthracornya and 

 Naiadites, there being nothing in common between them m perfect examples. Dr. 

 Hind is therefore misquoted when he is said " to admit a very close resemblance in 

 both crushed and perfect examples." He was speaking of the similarity of crushed 

 forms of a single species, viz., A. loevis var. Scotica. 



It is a mistake of H. B.'s to say the various items of description are not in same 

 order, on the whole, the diagnosis of the species are made with extreme care, and in 

 proper order. Lastly reference must be made to " H. B.'s " previous knowledge of 

 all he has revised. 



On page 36 Pal. Soc: Monog. vol. xlviii we find statement that he intended 

 himself originally to work up portion of the subject, and had already in M.S. a few 

 pages of his paper. It also seems that he looked over the specimens selected for 

 figuring, the M.S.S, and " proofs," of Dr. Hinds' Monog. Why then does he speak 

 as he does of C. acuta, C. robusta, C. aquilina, &c. ? Why did he reserve his 

 criticism until after publication. Was it chagrin at the successful outcome of 

 another's work ? 



Had " H. B." been as critically acute as he fancies himself to be, and as 

 honestly critical as he ought to be, he would have been able to see, instead of " signs 

 of great haste " implying careless work, signs of great painstaking, of persistent and 

 accurate investigation, of unwearied research, and of the consummate skill of the 

 "true" specialist with reference to the study and description of these difficult 

 groups of Pelecypods. 



W. F. HOLROYD, F.G.S. 



I HAVE been favoured with the sight of the above letters regarding my review 

 of Dr. Hind's Monograph. The review was signed only by initials. From these to 

 jump to conclusions as to the authorship, and to publish, without permission, 

 portions of private correspondence and garbled versions of our conversation, as Dr. 

 Hind has done, is a course of action which must excuse me from entering into any 

 discussion with him. Mr. Holroyd's position in this matter is like his arguments — • 

 not very clear ; but to you and your readers I have only to say that I am ready to 

 stand by everything written in my review. 



Herbert Bolton. 



The Manchester Museum, Owens College. 



NOTICE. 



To Contributors. — All coiiinmnications to he addressed to the Editor 

 0/ Natural Science, at 22 St. Andrew Street, Holborn Circus, 

 London, E.C. Correspondence and notes intended for any particular month 

 should he sent in not later than the loth of the preceding month. 



To THE Trade. — Natural Science is puhlished on the 2^th of each 

 month ; all advertisements should he in the Puhlishers' hands not later than 

 the 20th. 



To OUR Subscribers and Others. — There are now puhlished 

 Nine Volumes of Natural Science. Nos. i, 8, ii, 12, 13, 20, 23 

 and 24 heing out of print, can only he supplied in the set of first E our 

 Volumes. All other Nos. can still he supplied at One Shilling each. 

 Price of set of Vols. I., II., III., IV. ... £2 o o 

 „ „ „ v., VI., VII., VIII. ;^i 4 o 



„ „ „ I.-VIII £3 o o 



It will shortly he necessary to raise the price of Vols. I. -IV. still further. 



