CONCHOLOGY. 



wards sub-divided into turbinated or not turbinated ; 

 but he has the lasting merit of having introduced, in 

 the description of their characters, in their circumscrip- 

 tion, and in the creation of a conchological language, 

 that brevity and clearness which will ever entitle him 

 to be considered the model and master of systematic 

 naturalists, from which nothing can obviously detract, 

 except the bad taste and unaccountable feeling which 

 but too frequently marks his nomenclature setting 

 modesty at defiance, and making greybeards blush. 



About this period Martini commenced his gigantic 

 book, which was continued and completed by Chem- 

 nitz in 1788. This we consider rather as a collection 

 of the figures of shells, than as a true system of con- 

 chology, the arrangement partaking of Gesner and 

 Lister's plans, with regard to the first divisions ; and 

 the others formed from the habitat of the animals, he 

 nearly follows the Linna:an system, and his great 

 divisions may be considered simple, and not breaking 

 their natural gradations in any very remarkable de- 

 gree. As a work containing a greater number, and, 

 generally speaking, more correctly drawn illustrations 

 of shells, nothing combining these united advantages 

 has ever yet appeared ; its great price, however, will 

 ever render it a work of luxury more than utility. 



Dacosta, in 1776, published an original, and, it may 

 be said, true system, under the title of Elements of 

 Conchology. It differs evidently but little from that of 

 Linnaeus, though he attaches more importance to the 

 predominant characters drawn from the form of the 

 aperture in turbinated univalves, and the hinge of 

 bivalves ; he is the first writer who suggested the pro- 

 priety of changing many of those terms used by Lin- 

 naaus, of which we have already pointed out the inde- 

 cency; he has also considerably augmented the number 

 of genera of that naturalist, each of which are illustrat- 

 ed by tolerable figures ; but though his work may be 

 deemed highly instructive, he has not introduced into 

 the science any very strikingly new consideration. 



We pass over in silence several authors, such as 

 Mu'ller, Born, and others, who have added little or 

 nothing to the science of conchology, in our present 

 view of it. Those of them who have examined shells 

 with reference to the animal, will be noticed hereafter, 

 and we then come to the French School of Concho- 

 logy, in which it appears to us more has been done 

 than in any other, towards raising the study of this 

 interesting portion of creation into its well-merited 

 rank of natural sciences ; and we must be permitted 

 a slight digression from the immediate article under 

 consideration, to state, that although we are not wed- 

 ded to the system of any one author, blind to the 

 faults of all, or insensible to the improvements of time, 

 we must, nevertheless, adopt some rule of conduct, 

 some guide for our opinions, and we do not hesitate 

 in preferring a system, matured as it now is upon the 

 admirable model furnished by Cuvier, and other great 

 naturalists, his disciples: like every human effort it is 

 incomplete, often erroneous, but as a whole, the most 

 perfect yet constructed ; and, from being founded on 

 the broad basis of truth and common sense, will last 

 to the end of time, becoming more confirmed by every 

 day's experience of its correctness. 



Brugniere, in 1792, is the first author we shall 

 name, as having taken the lead in forming the modern 

 science of Conchology. We must all along be under- 

 stood to allude to it, more particularly as relative to 

 the consideration of shells as isolated bodies, the 

 view we have confined ourselves to in this article. 



Brugniere closely followed Linnceus, but it is dm; to 

 him to acknowledge that he has much more clearly 

 characterised and circumscribed the genera, which 

 has necessarily led to considerable increase of their 

 number. Death having deprived the world of the 

 benefit that would have resulted from his labours early 

 in the commencement of his scientific career, the small 

 number of genera he lived to describe will prove the 

 justness of his reasoning. His characters were well 

 defined, clearly explained, and, what is extremely im- 

 portant in this as well as every other study, they are 

 perfectly consistent with each other. He may be con- 

 sidered the first naturalist who has introduced into 

 conchology that exact precision of detail so necessary 

 to be observed, particularly with reference to those 

 minute indications required in a comparison between 

 recent and fossil shells ; in other respects he does not 

 claim much praise as having introduced any very 

 marked improvement in the Linngean system. 



De Lamarck improved upon his friend Brugniere's 

 method considerably, not only by considering the shell 

 as a part of the animal constructing it, according to 

 the opinions of Guettard, Adanson, Geoffrey, Miiller, 

 Poll, Cuvier, De Ferussac (father and son), De Blain- 

 ville, and others, but by the great number of new 

 generic divisions, a more rigorous terminology ; and 

 by the introduction of the muscular impressions in 

 bivalve shells, as the base of one of their prin- 

 cipal divisions, which, in 1810, was adopted by 

 Ocken. Lamarck, nevertheless, fell into the error of 

 classing the Chiton with the Patella. In general it 

 may be observed that he has entirely departed from 

 the divisions of previous conchologists, established 

 upon the number of pieces composing the shell ; and 

 that it is rather the combined form of the shell which 

 he examines, to establish his four first divisions into 

 sub-spiral, cardiniferous, sub-coronal, and vermicular ; 

 and, in fact, he could no longer admit the univalves, 

 bivalves, and multivalves, since he places the Chiton 

 amongst the sub-spirals, which certainly no one wishing 

 to arrange a collection of shells would have thought 

 of. In this arrangement, Lamarck has, if possible, 

 placed shells too closely in scientific connexion with 

 their animal inhabitant, which, though it renders the 

 subject far more interesting to the philosopher and 

 anatomist, occasions the science to become more dif- 

 ficult to those who have the same motive for studying 

 it, and merely look at it as a mental relaxation from 

 other worldly pursuits. During the period that was 

 occupied, in bringing to perfection and publishing 

 Lamarck's system, other conchologists followed Bru- 

 gniere's extended view of the Linnsean system, and 

 Donovan, Montagu, Bosc, &c., published their arrange- 

 ments. 



Denys de Montfort, in 1808, brought before the 

 public his Systematic Conchology, including only the 

 univalve shells ; but he carried his generic subdivisions 

 to a ridiculous excess, by wishing too narrowly to 

 define extremely minute characters ; this, doubtless, 

 arose from his having been the first author who thought 

 science demanded the description of microscopic shells ; 

 but though his work, were it generally useful, might 

 easily be modified, it is not considered an authority 

 at this time. Many of his genera are, nevertheless, 

 adopted. 



De Blainville, a French naturalist, and an excellent 

 anatomist of Cuvier's school, published his first clas- 

 sification of shells in a memoir read at the Philomatic 

 Society in 1812. This was founded on a reference to 



