110 
REVIEWS. 
form.” Now, we do not mean to query the truth of this reform among the 
Littorinidae; they, undoubtedly, wanted some change. We know that one 
of the authors of the British Mollusca was of opinion that some of the 
species above quoted might be varieties of each other; but still we cannot 
say we are quite satisfied at some eighteen or nineteen pages of Messrs. 
Forbes and Hanley’s works being so very roughly handled, particularly by 
an author who seems hardly to be aware of when he has made up his 
mind upon a subject, and when, for all we know to the contrary, we may 
find him at some future time telling us that, on reconsideration of the sub¬ 
ject, he has found himself unable to make two species out of one. 
We do not wish to be harsh in our criticism of this book, but there is 
about it an undigested look, which detracts much from its value as a scien¬ 
tific work, and much from its author’s reputation as a modern malacologist. 
Many of the memoirs in this volume have been published in the “ Annals 
of Natural History” from time to time, and are reprinted in exactly the 
same form as they appeared in that journal; so that, when opportunities 
presented themselves of examining the mollusc, and mistakes were dis¬ 
covered, they, instead of being incorporated in the text, are appended to it; 
and hence we are frequently annoyed, after reading the account of an animal, 
to find just at its close the words 11 since the above was writtenand then 
follow statements that not unfrequently are diametrically opposite to the 
ones we have been perusing. A curious instance of this occurs in the 
author’s description of the branchiae of Pandora obtusa. We find in the 
British mollusca of Forbes and Hanley, a note, by Mr. Clark, stating that 
this animal possesses “ two palpi, one branchial lamina, and (perhaps) an 
obsolete one, on each side of the body;” but as fresh specimens were 
examined, we find that (see p. 151 of the present work) he can now say, 
beyond dispute (sic), that there are two palpi and two branchiae on each 
side, and that he has preparations that can prove it; whilst in the appendix, 
in spite of saying and proving, our author returns to his original opinion! 
For our author’s credit, we may say, en passant , that this is the worst 
case our ingenuity could find; but we do meet, and that frequently, with 
cases where old opinions are made, and that without ceremony, coolly to give 
place to new ones. Now, new or old, which is the reader to patronize ? 
The system followed is based on sexual organization ; and following his 
predecessors in this method (for it is, by no means, of Mr. Clark’s devising), 
he gives us the following divisions:—Hermaphrodita sine concubitu, 
Hermaphrodita sine congressu, Hermaphrodita congressu, (and here 
we find the Trochidae: what will malacologists say to this ?), and, lastly, 
Bisexual—the most obvious meaning of this latter word is the very 
