58 Yorkshire Naturalists' Union : Annual Report, 1909. • 



Eastern coasts. In fact, it is an extremely common shell in the 

 South-west of England. 



(2) Mr. Borley has made no use of two important sources 

 of evidence : (a) Bean's list of Scarborough shells as published 

 in Theakston's " Guide to Scarborough"; [b) Ferguson's " Natural 

 History of Redcar." It is difficult to know what to think 

 of the firsi:. The list is so extraordinarily comprehensive that it 

 requires considerable credulity to believe that all the species 

 enumerated (some not to be found either in the Conchological 

 Society's list or in standard works on British conchology), were 

 found at, or indeed anywhere near Scarborough. How far the 

 inclusion of so many species is to be explained by the supposition 

 that Bean, who was a prodigious collector, did not always keep an 

 exact record of where or how he obtained his specimens, and 

 trusted to a faulty memory ; how far it may be due to an editor 

 possibly enlarging Bean's original list from other sources (the 

 earliest editions contained no list of shells), it is difficult to say. 

 It is practically certain that the list could not have been accepted 

 as a whole. On the other hand, there is presumptive evidence in 

 favour of the inclusion in the Yorkshire fauna of some shells given 

 in Theakston's list, though not quoted by Jeffreys on Bean's 

 aiithority, where the wide distribution of "the species made the 

 quotation of special localities in Jeffreys' opinion unnecessary, as 

 is the case with, for example, Bavbatia [Area] lactea and Tellina 

 crassa. * Such species might well have been included with a query. 

 Ferguson goes to the opposite extreme. His list only num- 

 bers seventy-five as compared with two hundred and six of 

 Theakston, and microscopic shells are hardly touched upon 

 He was more or less an amateur, and makes a few obvious mistakes, 

 for example, Abra prismatica for Abra alba — a shell too common 

 at Redcar to have been overlooked. But the list is valuable 

 where the species are well known and unmistakeable, as e.g., 

 Lucina boreaUs, Corbula gibba, Emarginula fissnra. By finding 

 the last, as already mentioned, this autumn (three shells washed 

 up, but fresh) at Redcar, I have been able to confirm the last 

 record. The onl}- locality given by the Victoria History is the 

 Dogger. 



(3) Probably several species enumerated in the " Victoria 

 History" should have been either omitted or marked with a query. 

 Fissurella grceca is given avowedly on the evidence of Hey as found 

 at Redcar (the only record). Now, Hey, in " The Naturalist," 

 1884, p. 130, gives Ferguson as his authority. Ferguson, however, 

 does not, in fact, give this shell, but he does give as already said, 

 Emarginula fissura. In this case Hey, generally a most trust- 

 worthy authority, evidently confused the names Fisurella and 

 Fissnra. The omission of Gibbnla magus would follow if Alder's 



* I have since learned that T. crassa has sometimes been brought -in by 

 Scarborough trawlers. 



Naturalist,. 



