THE NAUTILUS. 79 



was glad to say that in England (and, he hoped, in America also), 

 the ideas were not so far advanced (?). " In support of the last 

 proposition, he says : " Although examples of this shell have been 

 in the National (British) collection for more than fifty years, no 

 British author has ever suggested that they belonged to a distinct 

 species." This statement is apparently correct, but he might have 

 added quite as truly, that nearly all of these years were required 

 for "British authors" to find them worthy even of varietal distinc- 

 tion. 



In view of this " state of things, " it is not at all surprising that 

 Mr. Smith should consider it a " bit of presumption " for an 

 American student, having less than one year's knowledge of the 

 shells, to attempt to lift them above the plane of varietal contro- 

 versy. 



It matters not that this student has examined hundreds of speci- 

 mens, all showing the same distinctive specific characters. His 

 " ideas " do not agree with English formulas, therefore they must 

 necessarily be too far advanced. 



Nevertheless, the new species, C. (rre^^foj-i, has doubtless come to 

 stay, since it has been endorsed already by quite a number of emi- 

 nent (American) Conchologists, whose opinions, were it necessary to 

 mention names, would at once be accepted as weighty. In 

 regard to Mr. Smith's admission, " that examj^les are pretty easily 

 separated from the typical form of cruenta,'' it may be said that I 

 have seen no specimens whatever that could not be separated on 

 sight from any form of C. cruerda. Just here, it may also be said, 

 that I do not hesitate to claim (as in my former article) priority 

 both for the name and description of the shell ; and this claim is 

 made in face of the fact that British authors, as a rule, command 

 my highest respect and esteem. But while according this, I do not 

 expect them to throttle, without ample reason, even the humblest 

 seeker after knowledge. 



It is only just to myself to say that not until my first description 

 was in type, did I learn that Mr. Melvill had ever referred to the 

 shells, nor, so far as I could ascertain, was this reference known to 

 any of my Conchological friends. Indeed, the gentleman who 

 finally gave me the information has, from the first, regarded them as 

 C. caurica var. As Mr. Smith suggests, I was then, and still am, 

 under the impression that Mr. Melvill's sentences left the reader in 

 a state of uncertainty as to whether he considered the shells a 



