THE MOLLUSCA HEDLEY. 399 



American students has received scientific treatment. A higher 

 grade of work was reached by a poor, solitary, invalid exile like 

 Montrouzier than by men who had within their reach the unrivalled 

 resources of the collections, the libraries and artists of London. 



To descend from generalities to details, it may be pointed out 

 that whilst the foremost British and American writers in all other 

 branches of zoology now use English ; whilst the scientific writers 

 of other countries, like Sars and Collett in Norway, Schepman in 

 Holland and various Japanese authors, are adopting English as an 

 international language, on the grounds of its wide currency, 

 wealth and flexibility ; yet this conservative London school of 

 Conchologists reject the advantages of their mother tongue and 

 satisfy their humble wants with the poor and awkward medium 

 of Latin. 



By some strange unwritten law these Conchologists have in- 

 variably maintained a proportion between the size of a shell and 

 its illustration. Thus a large shell, however simple in structure, 

 demanded a large figure ; and a small shell, however complex its 

 details, a small drawing. Had this school encountered Pachyderms 

 or Foraminifera, one or both would surely have fallen beyond the 

 focus of their vision. 



Though great wealth of anatomical material was profferred them, 

 these writers have ever cast the " nasty things " aside. The fas- 

 cinating studies of structure, affinities, higher classification, or 

 geographical distribution had no charm for them. Their measure 

 of excellence in Conchological research being apparently the highest 

 score of new species. 



But the chief defect of this school is that it has added to the 

 superstructure without strengthening the foundation, and has thus 

 weakened instead of improved the fabric of our knowledge. Upon 

 the distinction of old species depends not only generic and sub- 

 generic classification, but even the reality of new species, which 

 are necessarily contrasted with them. The task of rehabilitating 

 old species, for which these writers have unique facilities, is by 

 them neglected in favour of the easier and more showy work of 

 describing novelties, which could be done at least as well by 

 others. 



In illustration, I will cite the following case, one instance of a 

 multitude. Hinds, in 1843,* thus described a new species, Triforis 

 collaris: " Testa ovata, acuminata ; anfractibus duodecim bisera- 

 tim granulosis, serie inferiorie paululum maxima, margaritacea, 

 superiore pallide fusca; anfractu ultimo quadriseratim subaequali- 

 ter concatenate. Axis 4 lin." 



* Hinds Proc. Zool. Soc., 1843, p. 23. 



