OCR Text |
Show 1881.] MR. E. A. SMITH ON THE GENUS CHILINA. 841 compelled to say that all these seven figures are very badly drawn and wretchedly coloured, and, in fact, are very unlike the specimens they are supposed to delineate. This will be readily believed by any one who will compare the figures in the ' Conchologia Iconica,' which are mere copies, with the originals, and see the rough manner in which they have been executed. I am unfortunate in having to follow Mr. Sowerby's work ; for it always provokes censorial criticism, which is very distasteful to m e ; but having under my immediate charge the collections which form the material upon which most of his monographs are founded, I feel it a duty to point out and correct such errors as I meet with, in order that it may be known that these do not exist in the Museum. The descriptive portion of this monograph is very defective, especially with regard to references. Species 1, C. fluviatilis, is attributed to Gray as if a manuscript name in the Museum, whereas it was described by Maton in the ' Linnean Transactions' of 1809. Species 2, C. fiuminea, is likewise assigned to Gray, who, although the first to place the species in the section Chilina, was not the author, it having been originally named by Maton at the same time he described C. fluviatilis, of which it is considered but a variety by d'Orbigny and myself. Species 4, C. domBeyana, is said to be of Sowerby instead of Bruguiere. Species 10, C. puelcha (wrongly numbered 11), is quoted as of d'Orbigny's manuscripts, whereas it has been fully described and figured by that author in the 'Voyage dans l'Amerique meridionale ;' and the same observations apply to G. tehuelcha. Species 13 (14 in tbe work), C. elegans, is stated to be a manuscript name of Fairfield in the British Museum. This absurdity shows Mr. Sowerby's complete ignorance of Frauenfeld's (the true author of the species) paper on this genus, published in the ' Verhand-lungen der zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien' for 1866. Species 15 (erroneously numbered 16), C. fasciata, is quoted as of Gould, followed by a - ? , indicative of Mr. Sowerby's doubt whether any description had ever been published. It was described in 1847 as DomBeya fasciata by Gould in the ' Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History,' and subsequently figured in the Atlas of Wilkes's Exploring Expedition. Finally, species 17 (wrongly lettered 18), C.parchappii, is referred to " Orbigny, Synopsis." This is extremely vague, being but the initial word of d'Orbigny's paper in the ' Magasin de Zoologie ' for 1835, entitled "Synopsis terrestrium et fluviatilium Molluscorum in suo per American! meridionalem itinere ab A. d'Orbigny collec-torum." The localities given in the 'Conchologia Iconica' are quite as misleading and unsatisfactory as the figures. C. fluviatilis, from the Rio de la Plata according to Maton and d'Orbigny, is said to be Chilian by Sowerby. C. fluminea, which is but a variety, and described by Maton from the same river, has the comprehensive habitat " S. America " attributed to it. Several others, viz. C. major, C. |