THE MOLLUSCA—HEDLBEY. 399 
American students has received scientific treatment. A higher 
grade of work was reached by a poor, solitary, invalid exile like 
Montrouzier than by men who had within their reach the unrivalled 
resources of the collections, the libraries and artists of London. 
To descend from generalities to details, it may be pointed out 
that whilst the foremost British and Amerigan writers in all other 
branches of zoology now use English ; whilst the scientific writers 
of other countries, like Sars and Collett in Norway, Schepman in 
Holland and various Japanese authors, are adopting English as an 
international language, on the grounds of its wide currency, 
wealth and flexibility ; yet this conservative London school of 
Conchologists reject the advantages of their mother tongue and 
satisfy their humble wants with the poor and awkward medium 
of Latin. 
By some strange unwritten law these Conchologists have in- 
variably maintained a proportion between the size of a shell and 
its illustration. Thus a large shell, however simple in structure, 
demanded a large figure ; and a small shell, however complex its 
details, a small drawing. Had this school encountered Pachyderms 
or Foraminifera, one or both would surely have fallen beyond the 
focus of their vision. 
Though great wealth of anatomical material was profterred them, 
these writers have ever cast the ‘nasty things” aside. The fas- 
cinating studies of structure, affinities, higher classification, or 
geographical distribution had no charm for them. Their measure 
of excellence in Conchological research being apparently the highest 
score of new species. 
But the chief defect of this school is that it has added to the 
superstructure without strengthening the foundation, and has thus 
weakened instead of improved the fabric of our knowledge. Upon 
the distinction of old species depends not only generic and sub- 
generic classification, but even the reality of new species, which 
are necessarily contrasted with them. ‘The task of rehabilitating 
old species, for which these writers have unique facilities, is by 
them neglected in favour of the easier and more showy work of 
describing novelties, which could be done at least as well by 
others. 
In illustration, I will cite the following case, one instance of a 
multitude. Hinds, in 1843,* thus described a new species, 7’riforis 
collaris:—‘ Testa ovata, acuminata ; anfractibus duodecim bisera- 
tim granulosis, serie inferiorie paululum maxima, margaritacea, 
superiore pallide fusca; anfractu ultimo quadriseratim subaequali- 
ter concatenato. Axis 4 lin.” 
* Hinds—Proc. Zool. Soc., 1843, p. 23. 
