ON MOLLUSCA OF THE WEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA. 193 



object was principally botanical, his love of natural science induced him to 

 collect all the shells he could meet with ; and with such good success, that 

 many of his species have not to this day been again discovered. The pecu- 

 liar interest attaching to his researches is, that he did not visit any part of 

 the coast north of Oregon or south of San Diego. There is no danger, 

 therefore, of any admixture with the shells of the Gulf district; and his 

 collections may be regarded as the type of the Californian fauna strictly so 

 called. Leaving the American shores, Mr. Nuttall visited the Sandwich 

 Islands, whence be only brought one species belonging to the American 

 fauna, viz. Hipponyx Grayanns, on a Pinna. On his return to the United 

 States, via Cape Horn, the description of the marine shells was undertaken 

 by Mr. T. A. Conrad, and of the land and freshwater species by Mr. Lea. 

 The latter gentleman communicated his paper to the American Philosophi- 

 cal Society, where it will be found in the ' Transactions,' vol. vi. ; Mr. Conrad 

 read his paper before, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, in 

 Jan. and Feb. 1837. It is published in the second part of the ' Journal ' of 

 the Society, vol. vii. pp. 227-268*. Although headed " Descriptions of New 

 Marine Shells, from Upper California, collected by Thomas Nuttall, Esq.," 

 it also contains not only descriptions of several of Mr. Nuttall's Sandwich 

 Island shells and Hinnita iWuftalli, from Fayalf, but also shells from places 

 never visited by him, as Lyonsia inflata, Guayaquil, Dr. Burrough ; Vulsella 

 Nuttalli, from the Friendly Islands ; and Tellina lintea, a fossil from Mobile 

 Point, Alabama. The work bears the appearance of undue haste ; the genera 

 are grouped together without the least regard to arrangement ; a large pro- 

 portion of the species are named either Califomicus or Nuttalli ; the diffi- 

 cult genera, such as Acmcea and Chiton, are not touched ; the localities 

 cannot always be depended on, as e. g. when Perna Californica is said to 

 inhabit the Sandwich Islands ; and the descriptions being in English would 

 not have been entitled to claim precedence were it not that they are accom- 

 panied by tolerably recognizable figures. The characteristic names and very 

 elegant and accurate descriptions of plants from the pen of Mr. Nuttall in 

 the same volume, make us greatly regret that he performed his conchological 

 work by proxy. But the confusion does not end here. Mr. Nuttall, having 

 reserved a small part of his collections for his own use, transferred the bulk 

 of them to Dr. Jay, accompanied by MS. names for the shells passed over by 

 Conrad. These have been printed in Jay's Catalogue, but without descrip- 

 tions, with the addition of some not in the least remembered by Mr. Nuttall. 

 Under these names they were sent to Mr. Cuming and others, and have 

 ■ taken their chance of admission into the monographs^. Meanwhile Mr. 

 j Nuttall returned to England (where he now resides on his estate, Nut Grove, 

 I Rainhill, near Liverpool), and continued to distribute the shells under MS. 

 I names; but not having access to Conrad's work, the names of that author 

 1 were often lost, and others substituted in their place. So little is Conrad's 

 paper known, that M. Deshayes redescribed several of the most character- 

 I istic species; Dr. Dunker complained that he had never been able to see it; 



* Part i. of the same volume bears date 1834. 



f It is generally supposed that the Hinnites Poulsoni, which is described and figured by 

 Conrad in the same volume of the Journal, and is the H. giganteus, Gray, is assigned to Fayal. 

 The two species have been confounded, as the locality of//. Poulsoni was not known. 



X Of the species only existing in Dr. Jay's Catalogue, and which therefore have no claim 

 to priority, I am unable to give any information. I have requested that celebrated concholo- 

 gist (through Dr. Gould) to furnish the public with either figures or descriptions of them, but 

 have not yet received a reply. From the redescription of several of them by Dr. Gould, they 

 would appear not to be well known even by the naturalists of his own country. 

 1856, o 



