MELVILL : THE PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE. 447 
his travels in Gothland, ‘‘ Wastgota resa forratted ar TAO” 
which gives figures of shells observed on his journey. He next 
described the contents of three museums :— 
(2) Museum Tessinianum, 1753. 
(0) o Adolphi Frederici Sueciz regis, 1754. 
(c) a Ludovicze Ulricee regine, 1764. 
The first two contain hardly any allusion to Conchology, but 
the last makes up for this defect, no less than 434 figures being 
given. 
Two or three dissertations and pamphlets now followed, e.g., 
the ‘‘Mantissa altera,” containing thirty-five descriptions of 
shells, the “‘ Fundamenta Testaceologiz,” and others. 
Linneus has been much, and adversely, criticised for 
the portion of the “Systema Naturse” which refers to the 
mollusca. 
Although only the tenth (1758) and the twelfth (1767) 
editions of this work are quoted as forming the starting 
point for Zoological nomenclature, it must not be thought that 
the genera of shells had been overlooked in the earlier editions. 
But that the classification was most imperfect, is shown by 
the fact that in the first edition of the “Systema,” 1735, only 
seven genera are mentioned :—Cochlea, Nautilus, Cypreea, 
Haliotis, Dentalium, Concha and Lepas. 
It is therefore urged against Linnzeus, and with some show 
of reason, that he adopted a retrograde step in this particular 
science, in wilfully ignoring the previous work of authors who 
had made testaceology a special study, and declining to re- 
cognize their genera. More especially is this observable in the 
later editions of his work. There can be no doubt that his 
investigations among the shells were not so original or first- 
hand as his other—more particularly his botanical—researches. 
Surely it is given to no one man to excel in all branches of a 
science, how much less of two sciences, and there is but little 
doubt that Lang, Lister, Klein and Adanson were better con- 
1758-67 
