486 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
of the varieties of H. arbustorum, I should give them as follows, adopting 
Mr. Woodward’s order, each one with a description :—H. arbustorum, (a) 
varieties of the shell. (1), in colour, flavescens, rwescens, &e. ; (2), in 
markings, unicolor, efasciata, &c.; (3), in thickness, tenuis, crassa; (4), in 
size, major, minor; (5), in shape, depressa, conica, sinistrorsa, &e. ; (6), 
combinations, major-depressa, tenuis-efasciata, &e. (b), varieties of the soft 
parts. Many of the above varietal names are now in use, but some, 
especially the combinations, now stand under other names. The! after 
Lecoque’s name, which seems to puzzle Mr. Woodward, is merely a certi- 
ficate of authentication.— ‘IT. D. A. Cockerett (51, Woodstock Road 
Bedford Park). (Or, placed after the name of a locality, it may denote 
that that locality is a new one for the species.—ED. ] 
Science versus Nomenclature.—I am glad to see that my friend, Mr. 
B. B. Woodward, has entered a well-timed protest in the name of true 
Science against the tide of misdirected energy, which at the present time 
bids fair to flood our scientific literature, and render useless to the progress 
of Science an expenditure of zeal upon a scale worthy of a better cause. I 
refer to the wholesale manufacture of varieties (so-called) to express 
differences of extremely doubtful value which present themselves, appa- 
rently for the first time, to the eye or the imagination of several well- 
intentioned student observers. The study of Conchology is one that admits 
of special facilities in this direction, and it is to this branch of Natural 
History that our attention is more urgently attracted. The recording of 
every variation or slight departure from a normal type—whether the varia- 
tions relate to colour, markings, dwarfing, or what not; or the slightest 
variation in, or departure from, a recognised type-form in one particular 
feature or structural portion of a shell—is a very useful habit, and far be it 
from my intention to seek to discourage such observation, or to depreciate 
or cast a slight upon its true value. For it is only by bestowing close 
attention upon individual differences that we can arrive at the sum of the 
liability to variation presented by any one species. The value which we 
would assign to an individual variation must be governed by certain well- 
ascertained generalisations which apply to the species as a whole. We 
cannot properly recognise as true variations such points as size or colour, 
perfection or imperfection, monstrosities, &c., because these are variable 
characters belonging to, and shared equally by all the members of a species, 
and should for this reason be excluded from a systematic classification 
resting upon a scientific basis. ‘The pursuit of true Science insists upon a 
due share of respect being paid to the term “variety,” as a term, the right 
understanding and appreciation of which assigns to it its due rank in the 
classificatory system. If this were not so, and if every so-called variation 
that presents itself within the limits of a species were to be tacked on to 
the name of that species, we should fall into a method of classifying in 
