cyprim;. 
141 
the species of this genus, our knowledge of them was, 
indeed, scanty. The descriptions found in the authors I 
have already quoted previous to him were so superficial, 
that even when illustrated by figures, which were also 
generally very bad, there was no possibility of distinguish- 
ing what species they meant to describe. This difficulty 
may be readily seen, upon inspecting the synonyms given 
by Muller, and then referring to the authors quoted by 
him, where we can easily observe that he himself has 
made several mistakes in such references — neither the 
description nor figures of such agreeing with his. For 
instance, under the species pub era, he refers to the Mono- 
culus conchaceus of Linnaeus, with the description which 
that author gives in his 'Fauna Suecica,’ “Antennis 
capillaceis multiplicibus, testa bivalvi a description so 
very general, that it answers equally well to any or all of 
his eleven species. He also refers to Joblot for the same 
species ; but from the representation which that author 
gives, as w r ell as from his description, it appears to me 
that it bears a much closer resemblance to Muller’s Can- 
dida ; and the reference to He Geer is equally faulty, as it 
is evident that fig. 5, and figs. 6, 7, both of which are 
quoted by Muller as th spubera, are in reality two distinct 
species ! In determining the species, therefore, we must 
consider the researches of the various authors previous to 
Muller as of little or no use whatever. Indeed, after 
Muller’s time, all the authors who have taken notice of 
this family have done little else but copy him till the 
appearance of Straus’s paper, and the work of Jurine. For 
instance, Gmelin, in the 13th edition of the ‘ Syst. Nat.,’ 
1788, not only quotes Muller’s species, but gives his 
erroneous references also, adding one or two of his own. 
He gives, however, two additional species, which Muller 
has not; and Manuel, in his article Monocle, in the 
'Ency. meth. Hist. Nat.,’ vii, 1792, after a few general 
details, copies the same species that Gmelin gives ; while 
Fabricius, in his e Ent. Syst.,’ 1793, gives the eleven 
species, which Muller describes, retaining, in addition to 
this, Gmelin’s erroneous synonyms. 
