SIR CHAELES BELL. 115 



This, then, was and is to a great extent, up to the 

 present time, the -universally adopted explanation. 

 Goldie, of course, could not afford time, and it may 

 be doubted if he possessed the requisite amount of 

 patience, to confirm what he wrote by actual obser- 

 vation. Seeing that the statement was graphic in its 

 details, and evidently either wholly or in part the 

 result of personal observation, he very naturally gave 

 it full credence. But what shall we say of a noted 

 writer (Sir C. Bell)* who apparently half doubts the 

 truth of exuviation, for although he mentions the par- 

 ticular account which Reamur gives, yet tells his 

 readers that ' naturalists have not found these cast 

 off shells/ After such a remark as this, we need 

 no longer sneer at the compilations of the author of 

 the ' Vicar of Wakefield.' 



I need hardly state, that at certain seasons of the 

 year almost every rock-pool at the sea-shore will 

 exhibit to the observant eye scores of ' these cast off 

 shells ' in a perfect state. The writer above quoted 

 also remarks, ' We presume the reason that the shells 

 of the Crustacea are not found in our museums, is 

 because they are not thrown off at once, but that the 

 portions are detached in succession/ An ill-founded 

 presumption this, the fact being that the inelastic 

 integument is invariably (in all the Decapoda at 

 least) thrown off entire, the eyes and long antennss 



Illustrations to Puley's Natural Theology. 



