76 Bibliographical Notices. 



or its technical appearance ; but this excessive subdivision annuls 

 the main object of classification, which is the massing of facts 

 under the feAvest heads possible. We must not omit to connnend the 

 general correctness of the press, which shows the advantage of double 

 authorship. A few typographical errors appear to have been inten- 

 tionally copied ; such as OncAidium for Oncidium, Melibe for Me- 

 lihoea, Cythara for Cithara, Stobilus for Strobilus, and Tri^jAoris for 

 Triforis. At the bottom of p. 64 a sentence is left unfinished ; it 

 should continue thus — " side, at the junction between the head and 

 abdomen, with a foot-like appendage. {Gray.)" We have also 

 noticed one paragraph which has quite escaped revision (at p. 15), 

 where six errors occur in a dozen lines*. 



The most attractive part of the work, and that of which we can 

 speak with the greatest satisfaction, is the series of illustrations by 

 that excellent engraver and veteran conchologist James D. C. Sowerby. 

 No less than 88 of these admirably-executed plates are devoted to 

 the 680 genera before referred to ; the subgenera are not figured. 

 Besides the shell of each genus, the operculum is given wherever 

 it is known, and representations of the living animals have been 

 selected, especially from the great French works of MM. Quoy and 

 Gaimard, D'Orbigny, and Eydoux and Souleyet. Many of the figures 

 are marked "original," but these are not always the best, and it is 

 to be hoped the author will take a little more pains with any he may 

 do in futuref. It must be observed that the opercula are all drawn 

 uj)side down ; and no scale is given, so that Helix pulchella looks 

 bigger than H. rufescens, and nearly as large as H. cornu-gic/antea. 



It will be necessary to examine and consider at some length the 

 nomenclature and classification employed by the authors, both on 

 account of the importance of their book and the extent to which it 

 differs from the older treatises, especially the 'British Mollusca' of 

 Messrs. Forbes and Hanley, so lately issued from the same press, and 

 which has deservedly taken the highest place as a work of reference 

 and authority. 



On comparing the generic names employed by ]Messrs. H. and 

 A. Adams vdth the terminology in general use, we find half the prin- 

 cipal names (of the univalves) changed, on the pretence of priority ! 

 We say pretence, because a very slight examination would have 

 shown that scarcely any of these names were accompanied by descrip- 

 tions, or otherwise entitled to the adoption of conchologists. 



The authors have judiciously omitted dates, having doubtless 

 found them a "delusion and a snare;" but the omission of refer- 

 ences, in so large and pretentious a work, is, to say the least, unusual. 



* Thetis for Tethys ; thecidicola for tethydicola ; Bser for Baer ; Lingri- 

 citula for Linguatida ; Pmnotheros for Piimotheres ; and Phospuga for 

 Plwsphuga. At p. 252, Chilinia " Cepuelca" and " pulchra" appear to be 

 misprints for " Tehuelcha " and " Puelclia." 



t Some of these figures are obviously taken from specimens in spirits ; 

 such as the Argonauta Oweni, pi. 2, in which the sail-shaped arm is turned 

 inside out; Toniatella solidula, pi. 66. f. 2; and Pfeifferia micans, pi. 72. 

 f. 11. 



