OCR Text |
Show 728 DR. J. E. GRAY ON THE CALYPTR^ID^*. [June 27, Though, in the vast majority of cases, the shells more recently named are to be regarded as the type specimens of the species described and figured from Mr. Cuming's collection, unfortunately, from Mr. Cuming's habit of replacing shells in his cabinet by better specimens when they occurred, there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to these shells being the types of the species described, the accuracy of the determination resting in such cases on the accuracy of Mr. Cuming's determination of their identity with the shells replaced; but there is no doubt that in the distinction of species and -varieties Mr. Cuming was very acute and is to be generally depended on. There is also another source of uncertainty. Mr. Cuming was in the habit of sending to Dr. Pfeiffer, Reeve, Sowerby, and other describers and figurers of the species certain specimens from his duplicates marked with the same number as that attached to his own specimens ; and the determination of the species depended on the accuracy with which these numbers were reported. I have observed a few undoubted mistakes arising from this system, and therefore believe that there may be others, though probably the number is not large; but these show the necessity of depending in all these cases on the shell named agreeing with the description, rather than on the fact that the specimens are so named in the collection. A very large number of species in the collection have been separated on very slight characters, or on the slightest variation of form, state, and colour. This has greatly arisen from the description and figuring of shells lately made known chiefly falling into the hands of dealers, like Mr. Reeve and Mr. Sowerby, or of persons employed by dealers, who select for their purpose those who are ready to fall into their views and make as many new species as possible; and the dealers are ready to repay such work with specimens to increase the describer's collection, or in other ways. A shell with a new name is much more valuable iu a pecuniary point of view than one with an old and well-known name. The value dealers attach to new names is proved by an incident that occurred to myself a few days ago, when a dealer offered me a new Volute for ten guineas. I said it was not new, only a slight variety of a welbknown species. At length he admitted that he had nine specimens of the Volute, and ended by offering to present me with the best of the series if I would describe it as a new species ! I am told that at length he found a person to fall into his views, and sold all his specimens at or above the price first mentioned. A short time ago a gentleman was induced to purchase a Volute at a high price, on the understanding that if he purchased it it would be described, figured, and named after him. This was done, though the shell is only a slight variety of a well-known not uncommon South Australian species. Fortunately the description was printed only on a flyleaf with the plate, and it is not likely to be preserved. The paying for the description of species of animals is no new source of trade, for it is recorded that John Reinhold Foster was paid threepence a species for describing new British insects for a scientific zoologist; but dealers can now afford to pay better, as is |