loo Quarterly Journal of Conchology. 



In the first chapter the number and distribution of the British 

 species is followed by the classification, firstly into bivalves and 

 univalves, and secondly the separation of the latter into aquatic 

 and terrestrial univalves, the author then ingeniously explains the 

 various forms of the shells by referring them to modifications of a 

 typical form, which he considers that of Helix to be. 



In the second and succeeding chapters the author imagines him- 

 self to be accompanying the reader in a ramble over the London 

 Clay, showing him the most suitable localities and habitats for land 

 and freshwater shells, and at the same time imparting a large va- 

 riety of informat ion with respect to the various species met with. 



The fifth chapter finds the author and reader extending their 

 rambles to the Chalk formation, including amongst numerous anec- 

 dotes, some relating to the edible character of various mollusks. 



The concluding chapter contains hints to collectors of shells, 

 how to set about it, where to go, and finally how to preserve the 

 shells when found. Then follows a systematic list of British land 

 and freshwater mollusca. 



A most valuable and original part of the work, is the list of local 

 catalogues of British land and freshwater shells, arranged alphabet- 

 ically under the names of the counties and districts to which they 

 relate, with which it is brought to a conclusion. 



Journal de Conchyliologie, July, 1875. 



Fischer, P. — Sur I'anatomie des Neritopsis (On the 2X\2Xq)- 

 my oi Nerttopsis), pp. 197 — 204. 



The author describes the anatomy of the genus from a spec" 

 imen of N. radula received from M. Rossiter. He considers that 

 the affinities of the genus are evidently with the Neritidce, as shewn 

 by its form, the shortness of the foot, the width of the proboscis, 

 the long, distant tentacles &c. It however differs somewhat in its 

 lingual dentition, as the central tooth and first laterals found in the 

 other Neritida. The transfer of the genus from the Neritidce 

 amongst which it had been placed by Grateloup (followed by Sow- 

 erby. Reeve, Woodward &c) to the neighbourhood of the genus 

 Narica, as proposed by Hermannsen, and accepted by Gray, 

 Adams and others was decidedly wrong. Plate XI. illustrates the 

 paper. 



Fischer, P. — Catalogue des Nudibranches et des Cephalo- 

 podes des cotes oceaniques de la France (Catalogue of the Nudi- 

 branchs and Cephalopods of the Atlantic coasts of France) pp.204 

 — 214. 



