Botany and Zoology. 425 
cen eerepats! The Scalaride between Littorinide and Ver- 
ide! In fact the arrangement of the families is very often un- 
soma We find, also, many singular inconsistencies in the gen- 
era adopted, for in some families the modern views and modern 
ames are introduced to a considerable extent, while in others, 
where such changes were even more desirable, the old ideas and 
the old genera are retained from the first edition, almost without 
} change. But by way of apology we find the following in the edi- 
= __tor’s ‘preface : “Should any disappointment be felt that Dr. Gould 
} __ has not adopted in his work all the improvements in classification, 
&e., which more recent investigations have suggested, it must be 
remembered that this is not a new work, It i is rather a reprint of 
oul 
i 
considered” absolutely necessary to its present usefulness,’ go 
“upon assuming the charge of the publication and receiving the 
of Dr. Gould, I end 
manuscripts, drawings, notes, &e. ‘s . eavored to 
learn thoroughly what plan he had made hh: revising the first edi- 
tio: I was directed to complete the work as nearly as 
in 
I have been able to arrive at a clear idea of his intentions, | which, 
according to my orders, I have most scrupulously endeavored to 
carry ont, irrespective of my own opinions. ee is only in ‘hatin 
the “Pulmonifera that I have exercised my own judgment, an 
here only to the extent that I believe Dr. “Gould would have 
proved.” We do not exactly understand how it is that the editor 
did not also exercis ise nie own Mem reg i regamp J: the Ascidi 
introducing important and essential aq bee which he himself 
would undoubtedly have adopted, had he ke a geome 
vise the work, Thus there seems to be no re i Voter 
era, now well established, ould not have eo saeed ~ exc 
ample, ‘nw established for “ .Buccinum ¢é 
ple, Huros 
as nothing to do with Buccinum ; Phychatractes Stimpson ee 
* Fasciolaria ligata,” ete. Even among the Pulmonifera, where 
in 
itor’s own judgment. Thus we find the “ y 
still depres under r Say’ s name, eH h Mr. Morse has well elu- 
it to be viviparous a and to have Sues other sharaeens entitling 
it at least to distinct generic ra 
ites for it, which coriainly has stronger claims than some 
other genera of the same family, which are adopted in this wack 
neither do we see sufficient reasons for retaining 
3 
= 
os 
iat 
a 
ES 
in 
z: 
. labyrinthica, H. asteriscus, H. pulchella, etc. in the genus He 
e lize, when a. arborea, H. eleetrina, EI. chersina, H. lineata, ete. 
| as Hyalina. would have appeared to us 
to to have ret setaingd all the ee in the old “genus” Helix, than to 
