CYPRID^. 141 



the species of this genus, our knowledge of them was, 

 indeed, scanty. The descriptions found in the authors I 

 have already quoted previous to him were so superficial, 

 that even when illustrated by figures, which were also 

 generally very bad, there was no possibility of distinguish- 

 ing what species they meant to describe. This diHiculty 

 may be readily seen, upon inspecting the synonyms given 

 by Mi'iller, and then referring to the authors quoted by 

 him, where we can easily observe that he himself has 

 made several mistakes in such references — neither the 

 description nor figures of such agreeing with his. For 

 instance, under the species pubera, he refers to the Mono- 

 culus conchaceus of Linnaeus, with the description which 

 that author gives in his 'Fauna Suecica,' "Antennis 

 capillaceis multiplicibus, testa bivalvi ;" a description so 

 very general, that it answers equally well to any or all of 

 his eleven species. He also refers to Joblot for the same 

 species ; but from the representation which that author 

 gives, as well as from his description, it appears to me 

 that it bears a much closer resemblance to MlUler's Can- 

 dida ; and the reference to De Geer is equally faulty, as it 

 is evident that fig. 5, and figs. 6, 7, both of which are 

 quoted by Miiller as \ki'd pitbera, are in reality two distinct 

 species ! In determining the species, therefore, we must 

 consider the researches of the various authors previous to 

 Mi'iller as of little or no use whatever. Indeed, after 

 Midler's time, all the authors who have taken notice of 

 this family have done little else but copy him till the 

 appearance of Straus's paper, and the work of Jurine. For 

 instance, Gmelin, in the 13th edition of the ' Syst. Nat.,' 

 1788, not only quotes Miiller's species, but gives his 

 erroneous references also, adding one or two of his own. 

 He gives, however, two additional species, which Miiller 

 has not; and Manuel, in his article Monocle, in the 

 'Ency. meth. Hist. Nat.,' vii, 1792, after a few general 

 details, copies the same species that Gmelin gives ; while 

 Fabricius, in his ' Ent. Syst.,' 1793, gives the eleven 

 species, which Midler describes, retaining, in addition to 

 this, Gmelin's erroneous synonyms. 



