CONCHOLOGICAL AUTHORS. 
XVII 
its passage through the press, itself wants a corrigenda 
corrigendorum, and is not always intelligible. 
From the Vice-President of the Linneaii Society we had. 
hardly expected, at this day, the absurd and antiquated me¬ 
thod of admeasurement, in comparing these subjects to a 
nutj a goose-egg, a pea, an oat, a walnut, an almond, an 
olive, a grape, a tick or horse-bean, a cabbage-seed, &c. 
Much less that we should have been doomed to construe 
such latinityas at p. 193. “anfractus quatuor teretes, striis 
longitudinalibus subtilissimis manifestis, transversis and 
at p. 242. “cum prmcedens umbilicum parvum habet.” 
But our strongest mark of censure must point at the 
loose habit of gathering synonyms, without reference to 
the original works, however easily accessible, and thus 
making error continuous, and as it were biblically heredi¬ 
tary, to the never-ceasing confusion of science. 
We are by these writers solemnly warranted, “ that in 
the synonyms and references, it has been their most sedu¬ 
lous endeavour not to mislead, either by transcribing upon 
trust from other authors, or by quoting such as are ambi¬ 
guous, or imperfect.” A pledge, which while the hand 
was recording, the heart must have known it to be in error. 
In conviction we produce the third plate of Da Costa’s Bri¬ 
tish Conchology, where of the eighteen figures there ex¬ 
hibited, seventeen are quoted v’rong, manifestly from that 
cause which they assert it has been their endeavour so se¬ 
dulously to avoid. If the student, with this Descriptive Ca¬ 
talogue for his guide, and Da Costa for his book of refe¬ 
rence, would arrange liis cabinet, be is instructed to refer 
to the figures of Troehus cincreus and Tr. cinerarius, as 
delineations of Tr. papillosus : to the figures of Troehus 
papillosus and Tr. umbilicatus, for Tr. ziziphinus : and for 
a figure of Troehus umbilicatus, to the representations of 
Nerita litoralis and N. fiuviatilis. As for the numbers re r 
ferred to for Tr. cine reus, Tr. cinerarius, Nerita litoralis, 
and N. fiuviatilis, they are in nubibus, and will not be found 
in Da Costa. These errors have originated in transcribing 
from Pulteney’s plates, where the numbers were sometimes 
altered. Yet have they been mostly copied in Mr. Rackett’s 
edition of the Dorset Catalogue, and yet has Mr. Dillwyn 
continued them to the present day. 
c 
Da 
