state: "Il suit pour l'Entomologie et la Conchologie la classification surannée de Linnæus." This is not a very respectful mode of speaking of the labours of the greatest naturalist whom his age produced; but the proposition is a total mistake; the charge is refuted by almost every page of my work; and, what is rather extraordinary, by the very quotations of the reviewer. In reply to the regret expressed, "que l'auteur n'indique pas toujours les ouvrages les plus récens," I should have been thankful had he subjoined what works these were; as I do not find, in the monthly lists of the Bulletin, any one which I have not consulted or referred to, if connected with the objects here described.^[5] M. de Ferussac's work has been regularly cited, but his Prodromus I have never been able to procure, either in England or Paris.

And here I cannot refrain from adverting to the great number of Zoological publications which have appeared in this country during the last three years; a number far exceeding in proportion that of any period in the annals of the science. Dr. Horsfield has commenced a beautiful work on the Animals of Java; and Mr. Sowerby is prosecuting his Genera of Shells with much zeal, and with increased ability. Both these appear periodically. They are conducted on the modern principles of science, and do credit to their authors. The Naturalist's Repository, before alluded to, likewise appears monthly, but is carried on according to the Linnæan system, pure and unadulterated. All these, however, unite in showing how rapidly the taste for such works has increased. Added to these, a new quarterly Journal, exclusively devoted to Zoology, has been announced, and, if conducted on liberal principles, its utility will be very great.

But nothing, perhaps, has more fully evinced the state of public feeling on this point among men of enlightened minds, than the discussions which have arisen on the present state of the British Museum. It is a subject on which I might be tempted to say much, did I not feel, that among those who do not know me, I might be suspected of interested or unworthy motives. But from the retirement of a country life, I may now be allowed perhaps to say a few words. It is indeed most true, that, in the Zoological department, this institution is a full century behind the rest of Europe; I might almost add, of America. But the fault is deep-rooted; and does not spring from the person (whoever he may be) to whom this overwhelming charge is given. It is ridiculous to suppose that the exertions of any one person (however great his talents, his zeal, and his assiduity,) are sufficient to discharge the duties of so complicated an office. Such a supposition implies the expectation of a moral impossibility; and so long as such a Herculean task is allotted him, so long will the Museum continue, with little alteration, in its present state. Where we have one Zoologist, the museums of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna have many; each is charged with the care of one particular branch; and, by their united efforts, the whole is displayed to the examination of the scientific, and to the view of the public. Each professor has thus leisure to prosecute the most important objects of his duty; i. e. to examine, compare, and describe, to detect analogies, to investigate affinities, and to give to the world the fruits of his studies. To France more particularly this honour is due. And what has been the result? Why, that Paris has become the Zoological university of Europe; and that the principles which have emanated from it, are now considered the only true ones by which Nature is to be studied.

It is not my object to attach reproach to any body of men collectively, or to any one individually; but truth is not to be concealed. Every writer who has the advancement of his favourite study at heart, is bound (however feebly) to advocate its cause. The truth of the preceding remarks cannot be questioned; and it remains with those in power, to consider well, whether such a state of things is consistent with the honour and reputation of the country; with the justice due to those great men who founded the institution; and to the expectations of the public, by whom it is supported.

Pl. 120

AMPULLARIA corrugata,

Wrinkled Apple Snail.

Generic Character.—See Pl. 103.

Specific Character.

A. testâ globosâ, corrugatâ, olivaceâ; spiræ prominentis, acutæ, anfractibus ventricosis; aperturæ margine crasso, fulvo, sulcato; umbilico parvo, juxta labii interioris mediam posito; operculo testaceo.

Shell globose, wrinkled, olive; spire prominent, acute, the whorls ventricose; margin of the aperture thick, fulvous, grooved; umbilicus small, linear, near the middle of the inner lip; operculum shelly.

Helix Ampullacea. Linn. Gmelin, p. 3626.

Ampullaria rugosa. Sowerby, Genera of Shells, fas. 4. fig. 1. 2.

The annexed figures of this hitherto undefined species will clearly show its distinction from Amp. globosa, (pl. 119); and the specific characters now framed for these two shells, will, I think, sufficiently distinguish them from each other.

In comparison with A. globosa, this (even in the young state) is a wrinkled, not a smooth shell, having the umbilicus placed near the middle, not towards the base, of the inner lip: the spiral whorls are elevated and ventricose, not depressed, and slightly convex; and the basal volution, instead of being very wide on the upper part, (near the suture,) is widest only in the middle. In young shells, the wrinkles and the marginated aperture are less defined. When divested of its epidermis, the colour is blueish white, with a few narrow bands of obscure purple. A specimen in my own collection has the epidermis so thin, that the colours beneath it are very conspicuous. The mouth inside is dark chesnut, with blackish bands; the margin being pale yellow and slightly reflected. The umbilicus, both in this and in A. globosa, is small and contracted, while in the real A. rugosa Lam. (Helix urceus Lin.) it is very large, round, and deep. This latter shell, also, differs from both of the former, by having a thin, and not a margined aperture.

Mr. Sowerby appears the only writer who has figured this shell, which he has mistaken for the A. rugosa of Lamarck. I am informed by Mr. Humphreys it is a native of India.

Pl. 121

CINNYRIS Javanica,

Javanese Creeper.