1 66 



TAPES GEOGRAPHICdS AND T. PULLASTRA. 



By J. T. MARSHALL. 



(Read before the Society, INIarch 19, 3902). 



I WOULD not return to this subject had not Mr. B. B. Woodward 

 gone out of his way to impugn my accuracy, inferences, references, 

 lucidity, &c. (antea p. 51). These are random imputations, and 

 have no basis. 



If Gwyn Jeffreys did not look up the authorities to whom he 

 referred, the logical inference is that he looked up the shells, or 

 how could he form an opinion ? 



From Mr. Woodward's research into the authorities he gave us 

 data, from his research into the shells not a word ; hence the 

 logical inference that he had " apparently ignored the shells." 

 There is no reflection here on Mr. Woodward. He asserts that 

 Bucquoy, Dautzenberg, and DoUfus unite these two shells, "though 

 they give no reason for it," just as I assert that he gave none for 

 separating them ; and his inference that " probably they simply 

 follow Jeffreys " is a gratuitous inference indeed. 



Mr. Woodward's assumption of my opinion as an " echo of 

 Jeffreys" is another gratuitous inference, "leaving much to be 

 desired in the way of accuracy." It was a confirmation, the result 

 of a conscientious examination, for my own sake, of authors and 

 specimens, taking nothing for granted ; and as Jeffreys omitted to 

 tell us how far the two shells differed, I was able to do so. 



My use of the word " superficial " was clearly explained in the 

 two following lines. Evidently he has not seen the pullastra form 

 with geographical lines at the posterior end (though I am fearful of 

 hazarding the inference) ; they are scarce, but existent. 



I readily admit overlooking in the " Porcupine " Report that Gwyn 

 Jeffreys includes the two forms in his geographical distribution, 

 though that does not alter the material fact. 



My references were absolutely correct, and if proof were -wanting 

 that my inferences were equally so, it may be found in the dis- 

 cursive details now given us to qualify the bare ipse dixit " quite 

 distinct," at the close of which we come to a sentence that is 

 concrete and to the point — " T. geographiais appears so clearly 

 marked off in its shape, coloration, and geographical distribution, 

 as to be worthy to rank as specifically distinct from T. puUastra.^^ 

 Seriously, can shape, coloration, and distribution constitute a 

 species ? If so, then many hundreds still remain in the cold 

 shade of oblivion, while in this particular case T. geographicus is 



