252 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
Selected on this principle, the author recognizes 121 species of British 
land and fresh- water molluscs; tire number given in the “British 
Mollusca ” being 125. This slight reduction in the number of species 
accredited to our native land is, however, far more than compensated for 
by the acknowledgment of no less than 187 distinct varieties, all of which 
are named and described ; whilst, of a large proportion, the localities and 
other circumstances of interest are recorded. 
The name of a new species had, until recently, something almost magi- 
cal in its attractions. Collectors were deemed fortunate who could secure 
the prize ; its absence from a cabinet was regarded as leaving an un- 
sightly gap ; whilst varieties, however curious or distinct, were counted as 
little more than superfluous luxuries. Thanks mainly to Mr. Darwin, 
this disparity is at an end, and collectors are now in a position better 
to appreciate the value of labours such as those of the author, and of the 
large increase he has made in the number of recognized objects of 
attention on the part of those who desire to study the land and fresh- 
water shells of our country. 
In the more difficult genera Mr. Jeffreys has, we think, succeeded in 
presenting the species in bolder and better relief than any previous writer. 
For example, the genus Zonilcs ; the descriptions of Z. nitidus , Z. alliarius, 
Z. pitrus, Z. nitidulus, Z. radiatulus, ought to leave collectors in no difficulty 
in identifying these snails, even without the assistance of plates. 
In nomenclature the author seems to us in a few instances to have 
needlessly increased the difficulty of the subject by the adoption of un- 
familiar names, having only a questionable claim to priority ; and by 
alterations in orthography induced by his desire to render all the generic 
names significant. A mere name is at all times a most fallacious guide to 
the determination of a species, and young collectors, to whom alone the 
caution need be addressed, should in no instance affix a name on account 
of its supposed agreement with a specimen under examination. It is far 
more honourable, and in every way better for scientific purposes, to attach 
the place, date, and, if possible, the circumstances of its capture, and to 
wait patiently till it can be satisfactorily identified. 
In the work before us, for Balen of Dr. Gray, the more recent Balia 
of Svvainson is adopted, as nearer “ badius,” a somewhat barbarous Latin 
word for “brown,” which is, after all, a wholly unimportant indication. If 
the supposed meaning of a name is to give a clue to its orthography, we 
can well imagine the erudition which may hereafter be called into exercise 
by future conchologists pondering upon such titles as those of Dr. Gray’s 
genera “ Lottia ” and “ Pollia,” the investigators being, after all, certain 
to hit upon no meaning half so pleasant as the fair originals. 
In one instance Mr. Jeffreys has for a well-established name, “ Pupa 
Anglica ” of Ferussac, substituted one of his own, “ Pupa ringens ” 
Jeffreys, on the plea of having been the first to describe the species, though 
previously figured under the familiar name ; and this whilst, on his own 
showing, the name Pupa ringens had been used by M. Michaud for 
another species of the same genus. All possible consideration will, how- 
ever, doubtless be extended to the author when it is understood that the 
