1702 TflK Zoologist — Jone, 1869. 



I might say, it behaved miilishl)' and kicked, — the organ thus forcibly 

 used being called the fool, 1 believe. The inverted position seemed 

 a painful or disagreeable one. 



I hesitate to record an observation repeatedly made on account of 

 the apparent improbability of the fact, and the difficulty of explaining 

 it. Individuals of some species of shells many times vary greatly in 

 size as well as in colour. In other species, the said variations are 

 slight. In one or more species of Cyclostoma of this latter kind, I 

 have often found young individuals considerably larger than any fully 

 grown. There could be no shadow of a doubt that these were all of 

 the same species, and not two distinct ones living together. Among 

 a dozen or two fully formed shells and others nearly grown, all agree- 

 ing well in size, one, perhaps two or more, incomplete individuals 

 would occur, so much larger than all the rest, as to suggest the ques- 

 tion, — Why do we not Jind Jinished shells of this larger size? 



Two solutions of this question have presented themselves as pos- 

 sible, though neither of them is quite satisfactory. One is, that the 

 animal has power to absorb its shell and reconstruct it of a smaller 

 size. The other, which seems more probable, is, that these over- 

 grown individuals are abnormal, deformed, and never come to per- 

 fection. Thus, being thin and fragile, they soon crumble and dis- 

 appear. I have thought that I found proof or evidence that moUusks 

 have power to absorb and reform the shell. From Melania and 

 Paludina, which are viviparous, I used to preserve the young found in 

 the process of cleaning the shells. Observing that they were quite 

 blunt at the apex, and that somehow in their growth toward maturity 

 they became sharp-pointed, I could in no other way account for this 

 than by supposing that they absorbed the shell, and reconstructed it 

 after a smaller pattern. 1 will admit, for what it is worth, the possi- 

 bility of inaccuracy in my observations when comparing small things 

 with great. Thus, a very short cone might appear blunt, while, if 

 increased tenfold, the bluntness would be, relatively, quite little. Yet 

 this view does not satisfy me, and I still think my first impressions 

 were correct. Will not some one by accurate measurements settle 

 this question? 



On the beach to the eastward of Matanzas the habits of a Cyclo- 

 stoma struck me as noteworthy. A hundred yards or more from the 

 shore, the ridge formed of sand and broken shells is overgrown with 

 various trees and bushes, which this shell ascends probably to feed on 

 some lichen. But if the tree leaned at any considerable angle, say 



