’ 
THE NAUTILUS. 719 
was glad to say that in England (and, he hoped, in America also), 
the ideas were not so far advanced (?).” In support of the last 
proposition, he says: ‘ Although examples of this shell have been 
in the National (British) collection for more than fifty years, no 
British author has ever suggested that they belonged to a distinct 
species.” This statement is apparently correct, but he might have 
added quite as truly, that nearly all of these years were required 
for “ British authors” to find them worthy even of varietal distinc- 
tion, 
In view of this “state of things,” it is not at all surprising that 
Mr. Smith should consider it a “bit of presumption” for an 
American student, having less than one year’s knowledge of the 
shells, to attempt to lift them above the plane of varietal contro- 
versy. 
It matters not that this student has examined hundreds of speci- 
mens, all showing the same distinctive specific characters. His 
“ideas”? do not agree with English formulas, therefore they must 
necessarily be too far advanced. 
Nevertheless, the new species, C. Greegori, has doubtless come to 
stay, since it has been endorsed already by quite a number of emi- 
neut (American) Conchologists, whose opinions, were it necessary to 
mention names, would at once be accepted as weighty. In 
regard to Mr. Smith’s admission, “that examples are pretty easily 
separated from the typical form of erwenta,” it may be said that I 
have seen no specimens whatever that could not be separated on 
sight from any form of C. eruenta. Just here, it may also be said, 
that I do not hesitate to claim (asin my former article) priority 
both for the name and description of the shell; and this claim is 
made in face of the fact that British authors, as a rule, command 
my highest respect and esteem. But while according this, I do not 
expect them to throttle, without ample reason, even the humblest 
seeker after knowledge. 
It is only just to myself to say that not until my first description 
was in type, did I learn that Mr. Melvill had ever referred to the 
shells, nor, so far as I could ascertain, was this reference known to 
any of my Conchological friends. Indeed, the gentleman who 
finally gave me the information has, from the first, regarded them as 
C. caurica var. As Mr. Smith suggests, I was then, and still am, 
under the impression that Mr. Melvill’s sentences left the reader in 
a state of uncertainty as to whether he considered the shells a 
