OF WILLIS’ PUBLISHED PAPERS—GANONG. 413 
“Mr. Epiror,—With you [sic] kind permission, I avail my- 
self of the columns of your useful journal to publish a list of Test- 
aceous Mollusca of Nova Scotia, collected by me up to the pres- 
ent time. I did not intend doing so until my collection, already 
pretty extensive, was completed, and I am now only induced to 
alter my plans, that I may not give offence to many impatient 
friends and correspondents, to whose opinion due reference 
should be paid—and who are anxious to know how much or how 
little Nova Scotia can produce in the conchological field. As 
many of the genera are but thinly represented in this Province, 
instead of classifying, I have merely arranged them, for the sake 
of reference, in alphabetical order, premising, of course, that 
many of your reade:s have some knowledge of the fascinating 
science of shells. 
I will be pleased to give the localities, depths of water, &c., 
where any specimen can be procured, to any correspondent who 
may think proper to aldress mea post-paid communication on 
the subject. The name of any specimen marked * is new to the 
Province.” 
(2). 1859. List of Birds of Nova Scotia. Compiled from 
notes by Lieutenant Blakiston, R. A., and Lieutenant Bland, R. 
E., made in 1852-1855, by Professor J. R. Willis, of Halifax. 
Smithsonian Annual Report for 1858. Washington, 1859, pp. 
280-286. 
An annotated list of species containing occasional comments 
signed “J. R. W.” It is the only jfublication of his known to 
us which does not deal with Mollusca. A “ List of the Birds of 
Bermuda,” by Lieut. Bland, R. E, in the same volume (pp. 286- 
289) is said to be ‘communicated by John R. Willis.” 
(3). 1862. Catalogue of the Marine Shells of Nova Scotia. 
By T. R. Willis (sic), of Halifax. Proceedings Boston Society of 
Natural History, VIII, 1862, pp. 61-62. 
This list was read betore the Society in January, 1861. It is 
a list of names only, an gives only Marine Mollusca, of which 
129 species are enumerated. As far as it goes it is very like the 
list in the Colonial Review described below (No. 4), like it 
including two species of Cellularia (a Polyzoan), and like it 
omitting several species to be found in his latest list (No. 5). 
Further comment on this is not called for; it is easily accessible- 
