400 Mr. Svvainson on Melina Setosa* 



arguments themselves are either so trivial, or so obscurely stated, 

 that it is difficult to shape a reply to those parts really deserving 

 notice. It is however due to the readers of your journal, that I 

 should make some comments upon this production. Mr. Gray's 

 object appears to be two-fold, and to aim at proving, 1st. That 

 Melania setosa is not anew shell ; because specimens have for 

 many years been in the British Museum; and because it is named 

 in the manuscript catalogue of that collection : 2ndly That this 

 shell presents nothing extraordinary in its construction ; because 

 certain other shells are stated to have a similar structure. 



The first of these propositions, notwithstanding its novelty, may 

 be answered in a few words. Until now, Naturalists hare consi- 

 dered a species to be new, which has not been described or figured 

 in any printed book. But, according to the singular doctrine of 

 this writer, we are bound to make the tour of all the museums — 

 public or private — native or continental, and consult all their ma- 

 nuscript catalogues, before we venture to say we are describing a 

 new object. Melania setosa appears to exist in the British Mu- 

 seum, and to be named in the manuscript catalogue. The shell 

 may be in a dozen collections, and have a dozen manuscript names, 

 for ought I know to the contrary. What follows ? Why, that the 

 shell is not new to science ; although it has confessedly never been 

 described, or publicly recorded ! 



In supposing the figure of Lister (tab. 1055. f. 8) to represent 

 Melania setosa, Mr. Gray sets himself in opposition to Linnaeus, 

 Gmelin, Martini, and Lamarck, who have all quoted this identical 

 figure as representing Melania amarula, Lam. Yet, setting aside 

 these authorities, (which Mr. Gray seems to think may be done 

 without notice or comment,) we shall find on referring to Lister, 

 not the slightest appearance of those bristles peculiar to M. setosa 

 to be represented in the figure ; which thus agrees with Mr. Gray's 

 own account of M. amarula. 



Mr.Gray then proceeds to describe in a phraseology of his own,* 



* Conchologists for the last hundred years have been so blind as to mistake 

 the top of a shell for the bottom, and vice versa. We are instructed by Mr. 

 Gray, to call the apex of a shell, its base ; and what we have hitherto " cul- 

 pably " termed the base, we must in future call the apex or top. Concholo- 



