Mr. L. Reeve on the Recent Terebratulse. 443 



variation as the perforation by a blood-vessel of a cervical ver- 

 tebra, it can hardly be accepted as a correct exemplification of 

 the principle which Cuvier has so successfully applied. The 

 non-perforation of a cervical vertebra by an artery is certainly 

 not such a character, subserving an important purpose, and de- 

 noting ordinal distinction, as the presence of a marsupial bone 

 in an Opossum, with which Prof. Huxley compares it. The 

 analogy which it is attempted to deduce, as adverse to the prin- 

 ciples of correlation, therefore totally fails, whilst this high law 

 of comparative anatomy, " aussi certaine qu'aucune autre en 

 phjsique ou en morale," remains unimpaired by the re-discovery 

 of Macrauchenian remains in the Andes. 



I remain. Gentlemen, 



Your obedient Servant, 



Charles Carter Blake. 



LI. — On the Recent Terebratul^e ; in Reply to some Observations 

 by Professor E. Suess, of Vienna. By Lovell Beeve, P.L.S. 



To the Editors of the Annals of Natural History. 

 Gentlemen, 



While working out a Monograph of the recent Terebratulce 

 for my ' Conchologia Iconica,^ a summary of which appeared in 

 your Journal for March, and was translated into the Paris 

 * Journal de Conchyliologie ' for April, I had occasion to study 

 the valuable researches on their geographical distribution by 

 Prof. E. Suess, published, in 1859, in vol. xxxvii. of the ' Pro- 

 ceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna.^ I 

 was not slow to appreciate the labours of that distinguished 

 naturalist ; but having discovered some of his conclusions to be 

 founded in error, I thought it necessary to allude to them, add- 

 ing, " I mention these instances, not with the view of casting 

 disparagement on Prof. Suess's philosophy, but as exemplifying 

 the inconvenience of going into philosophical dissertations before 

 the materials have been thoroughly sifted and verified." I have 

 read Prof. Suess's comments in your last Number on my excep- 

 tions to his views ; but it does not appear to me, as I shall pre- 

 sently demonstrate, that he has shown any of my criticisms to 

 be groundless. Prof. Suess remarks that the greater part of his 

 statements are taken from English catalogues, and that his 

 errors are mainly due to English authors. I suspected this; and 

 my conviction that his conclusions ought to be received with 

 caution was founded upon the discovery that some at least of 

 those statements were erroneous. What, I would ask, is the 

 worth of an elaborate superstructure of philosophical dissertation, 



29* 



