ZOOLOGICAL HTERATUR3S. 
^50 
passim). Mr. Reeve protests against this unheard-of inno- 
vation, in the interest of a fixed nomenclature (ibid. p. 440); and 
Mr. Carpenter again replies in the most candid manner, viz. 
jthat, in many cases, we cannot with anything like scientific 
certainty decide whetl^er a particular form is a species or a 
variety. Mr. Theobald, in a most interesting paper on Burmese 
Land-shells (Journ. As. Soc. Beng. 1864, pp. 238-250), extends 
the limits of the term variety considerably, uniting into one 
species numerous forms which previous authors had regarded as 
.distinct. The tendency of the greater part of Conchologists to 
multiply the number of species on the slightest grounds, must 
necessarily lead to ^such a reaction, in which more regard is 
paid to the common than to the divergent characters of the 
specie^. It is certainly desirable that every local form, well 
marked gepgraphic^lly and zoologicady, should have a distinct 
name ; but whether we npme them vpleties or good species 
scenes tp be, in reality, a matter of piinor iippprtance. 
