1 66 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vol. VII, 



successors who have either paid no attention to the ontogeny of the shell, or else have 

 totally misinterpreted its mode of growth. 



Sentences (6) and (7) do not call for any special comment. 



(8) and (9) The description of the colouring is remarkably complete, precise, and 

 consistent, and in several points is opposed to what is observed in Dolium maculatum ; 

 as for instance the remark that the maculations are usually less distinct on the early 

 part of the spire than at succeeding stages, just the opposite of what is usually seen 

 in Dolium maculatum ; or again the occurrence of non-spotted specimens, frequent 

 in the species described by Bruguière, not known in Dolium maculatum ; also the 

 occurrence of specimens uniformly tinted brown, which again entirely excludes Dolium 

 maculatum. 



(10) The distribution mentioned is to a large extent incorrect ; but if the name 

 were to be rejected on that account, it would be necessary to reject also for that 

 same reason an enormous proportion of the species established by Linnaeus, Gmelin, 

 Lamarck, Sowerby and even Reeve, as, in former times, the localities from which 

 objects of Natural History were obtained were but too often incorrectly recorded. 



In conclusion, it is very seldom, even at the present day, that a species is des- 

 cribed with the fulness, precision and detailed accuracy noticed in Bruguière' s des- 

 cription of Buccinum tessellatum, and generally in all descriptions by that author. 

 If all specific distinctions depended on descriptions of similar merit, the troublesome 

 uncertainties of identification, of which the present imbroglio is but too common an 

 instance and which so seriously impede zoological research, would never happen. 

 There cannot possibly be two interpretations of Bruguière' s description above ana- 

 lysed, and it would be inexcusable to substitute any subsequently published appella- 

 tion in place of his Buccinum tessellatum. 



While adhering, in the text of his descriptions, to the limits of the genus Buccinum 

 as expanded by Linnaeus, Bruguière nevertheless classifies the species into two sec- 

 tions, of which the first one is explicitly stated to coincide with d'Argenville's genus 

 Dolium. This must be the reason why Bruguière has not adopted the Linnean 

 specific name "dolium" to avoid a repetition in the event of a reinstatement of 

 d'Argenville's genus Dolium, the use of which was indeed resumed on the plates 

 illustrating Bruguière's descriptions. 1 



The next in date amongst the important works concerning the question 

 under consideration is Lamarck's " Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres.'" 

 The general standard of Lamarck's method compares unfavourably with that of 

 Bruguière, though it is but fair to keep in mind the adverse circumstances that have 

 affected the work of all naturalists during his time and ever since ; for he was not so 

 happily situated as Bruguière who had the good fortune to terminate much of his 

 work on the very eve of that terrible catastrophy which has for ever retarded the 

 rate of progress of scientific knowledge and of all intellectual culture. Lamarck 

 deserves our admiration all the more for his undaunted perseverance amidst circum- 



1 At least so I gather from the references to Bruguière's figures as given in the synonymy by Lamarck, Deshayes, 

 and Küster. As already mentioned the plates of the Encyclopédie are not available in Calcutta. 



