Mr. Lea on the Naiades. 547 



species (U. esopus) he has ventured to name, yet the eulogist of 

 Mr. Lea puts U. esopus, of professor Green, among the species 

 added by Mr. Lea. 



I could multiply instances of this kind, but it is unnecessary, 

 Mr. Lea seems to think that to possess a shell which has been 

 before described, and to invent a synonyme for it, is fair game 

 if it can pass undiscovered. He seems also to overlook the con- 

 sideration that molluscous animals of the same species, are some- 

 times large, sometimes small; there are giants and dwarfs, 

 probably, in all the natural species. Thus his U. parvus, also 

 previously described by Barnes, may belong to a species which 

 another person with equal propriety may call U. magnus ; be- 

 cause it is the largest shell of the kind he has met with ; and at 

 any rate U. parvus becomes without distinction the moment a 

 smaller race of unios is found. 



When Mr. Lea's papers first appeared, it was perceived at 

 once that they had been drawn up without a proper regard to 

 the rights of others. They M'ere permitted, however, to pass 

 over in silence ; it was not thought advisable to draw the ani- 

 madversions of the public upon the transactions of a respectable 

 society, that had given such evidence of its desire to enlarge the 

 boundaries of our conchological knowledge. When, however, 

 these objectionable papers are again obtruded upon the public, 

 and studiously paraded in a scientific journal, it becomes a duty 

 to speak out, and to point out to the American Philosophical 

 Society, which has acted with so much liberahty, the very seri- 

 ous demerits of these papers. I regret that the task has fallen 

 upon myself; it would have been more agreeable to me to have 

 had as many occasions to commend, as I now find to censure. 

 I speak for the sake of truth alone, my own claims to distinction 

 in this branch of natural history, being in no way whatever, 

 compromised by what Mr. Lea has written. That he has been 

 unjust to those who preceded him, and to whose labours he is 

 indebted in the greatest degree for the information he possesses, 

 is unquestionably true; and he will have reason to regret that 

 he has not taken a more secure method of raising himself a repu- 

 tation. No man deserves to succeed, whose first object is to ob- 

 scure the labours of those who have preceded him. Neither has 

 he sufficient originality in what is his own, to sustain him against 

 the resentment many will bear towards him, and the general 



