74 NOTES. 



CJray's name was only a new name for an already preoccupied genus of the 

 Picidic, and so would stand on its bare ]uiblication ; it was, however, fully 

 described in his subsequent larger work, which also antedates Messrs. Adams. 

 The paper by these authors appeared in the P.Z.S. eight months prior to the 

 })art of their " Genera of Recent Molhisca," which contained the name. Bronn's 

 Laiinodonta was never described, and the name only appeared in a sale catalogue, 

 the type is jjrobably Plecotreiiia striatiiin^ Phil. (sp. ). Philippi used, and 

 misspelt, the name in consequence of shells that he received from Bronn ; he did 

 not describe it. I cannot hnd that Xuttall ever published the name, though 

 most authors seem to have given him credit for it. — E. R. Sykks, B.A., K.Z.S. , 

 London. 



Reviews of the " Manual of Conchology." 



In looking over the reviews of the Manual of Conchology in the " Journal of 

 Malacology," I have lieen forcibly struck by the widely different conceptions uf the 

 functions of a reviewer held by " E. R. S." and myself I have l)elieved that 

 such notices as these should primarily give an idea of the new or original views 

 advanced in the publications noticed, anil the more faithfully these are mirrored, 

 the better the review ; typographical errors and misprints being (secondarily) 

 indicated. " E. R. S." seems to act on the theory that original views (except in 

 .so far as these are expressed in 7iew names — a very difterent thing from iinv ideas) 

 are not worth space, which is given up largely to the correction of supposed "slips" 

 and " printers' errors." Even these would be of use were they well founded, but to 

 attempt C(3rrections without being familiar with the subjects treated is dangerous, 

 and should not lightly be essayed. "Don't monkey with the buzz saw," as the 

 sign reads in a Western saw-mill. In the March Journal, " E. R. S." says 

 " Hedkycconcha, a horrible name '' ; but was the name as I wrote it as bad as this 

 incorrect spelling? And then " E. R. S." adds a syllable to Thauiiiatodon, 

 making it Thauviinatodon, a name I never proposed, and a stumbling-block to 

 future nomenclators. Again, in the June issue he says that the key to Sagda 

 would " be of more use if S. jayaiia and .S". laniiiiifcra did not appear in more 

 than one section of it," which is not true, as ])rovision had to be made for the 

 wide variation of certain species; and, moreover, " .b'. laininijera'' is E. R. S.'s 

 name, not mine. I wrote laineliifera. I never heard of " ^S. laminifera" before. 

 Can it be a " slip" of my worthy critic, like '^ Hedleyecoitcha" " T/ianviinatodoii ,'' 

 &c. ? In the September Journal, " E. R. S." says : " .Slips such as ' P'ischer ' for 

 ' Fischer de Waldheim,' and printers' errors such as ' Acteon ' are too numerous." 

 The first of these was no "slip," but an intentional contraction supposed to be 

 allowable in view of the fact that the full name appears in the generic caption on 

 the same page. As to '■^ Acteon, ^^ if " E. R. S." had looked up the reference 

 in which I use this spelling, he would see that I quote it faithluily. And so 

 I could go on, showing many more errors on the jjart of " E. R. S.," but ciii 

 bono} As long as human nature remains what it is, critics will shoot their little 

 arrows ; and it this target of mine affords them amusement, surely I should not 

 complain, but rather be grateful if sometimes a true shot nails error in view of the 

 scientific field. — H. A. Pli.SRRY, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 



It is a popular superstition with authors that critics who do not agree with 

 them are incompetent, antl Mr. l^ilsbry is no exception to the general rule. He 

 complains that I do not refer to his "new or original views" ; if, however, 

 I consider that there are none in a particular work, I cannot mention them. As to 

 what constitutes "original views," each critic must form his own opinion. 

 A review such as he seems to desire would take up more space than can l:)e 

 spared. Mr. Pilsbry must remember that, saying that / am not familiar with 

 subject, does not prove that he is. " No case, abuse your adversary," is a good 

 old saying. Seriously, however, I have much admiration for the good work 

 Mr. Pilsbry has done and is doing. The point of my remark as to Hedleyocoiicha 

 is that a modern surname combined with a Greek word is not a good generic 

 name. The key to Sagda is, in my opinion, founded on an insecure basis ; the 

 two species do undoubtedly occur in more than one section of it, namely in (a a) 

 and (a a a), and, if Mr. Pilsbry cannot fit the species in without this occurring, he 

 can hardly expect me to praise it. That is the point of the criticism to which 



