538 Mr. Lea on the Naiades. 



so, to all those naturalists whose papers might hereafter be pre- 

 sented to that society with the same expectations. 



There are in the city of Philadelphia several experienced 

 Conchologists, and numerous fine collections of shells. I would 

 name here Mr. Hyde, Mr. C. A. Poulson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Ma- 

 son, Mr. Nicklin, Dr. Green, Mr. Hembell, Mr. Pierpont, Dr. 

 Griffith, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Wistar, Mr. Philips, and many others. 

 To such persons, every thing that is done in Conchology is a 

 matter of great interest, and as the unios of our country have 

 been brought into notice but of late years, most of our Cbncholo- 

 gists have had something to do, more or less, with the establish- 

 ment of the species, and all of us — for I have studied Conchology 

 likewise — are, at any rate, well acquainted with the history of 

 the classification of those shells. 



From the language used in Professor Silliman's Journal, he 

 has, as it would appear, purposely placed himself before the 

 public, as the writer of the review in question. He refers to 

 the labours of other Conchologists as being " contained in the pages 

 of this journal." Expressions of this kind often repeated, justify 

 his being held as the responsible person, even if he is not the 

 writer ; for no prudent editor permits — at least 1 must think so 

 — his contributors to personify him, without reasons that are 

 approved by his judgment, of whatever calibre that may be. 

 Editors who have every opportunity of rejecting what is incon- 

 sistent with that extensive and sound information, that spirit of 

 candour, which every man who assumes to pass judgment in 

 matters of science, is supposed to possess, to some extent at least, 

 by his readers, can set up no defence for misleading the public, 

 by saying that important papers, affecting the interests of sci- 

 ence, and the reputation of individuals, were admitted because 

 they were not read, were not understood, or because it was not 

 convenient to reject them. 



I shall apply the remarks I am about to make, indifferently 

 to the writer and to Mr. Isaac Lea. 



The review commences with stating, that " the moUusca of 

 our seaboard have hitherto attracted little attention, except for 

 purposes of food. We never see their dwellings employed as 

 articles of fancy or decoration, with the exception of the com- 

 mon scallop, whose unpolished exterior must first be concealed 

 by a coating of varnish and a border of gilding, before it is 



