present some very strong points of analogy to those in the circle of
_Vertebrata_: and that such analogies should extend to the corresponding
groups of the _Annulosa_. This we should expect, not only as the necessary
result of a truly natural arrangement, but as a primary test, by which the
correctness of any series of affinities must be tried. Now admitting that
Quadrupeds and Birds shew the same typical perfection among the
_Vertebrata_, as the Mandibulate and Suctorial Insects unquestionably do in
the _Annulosa_, we have two beautiful analogies between these otherwise
dissimilar groups, taken from one of the most important functions of
nature. Quadrupeds and mandibulate insects are provided with jaws for
tearing and masticating their prey, while in birds and suctorial insects,
the mouth is lengthened into a proboscis, by which nourishment is imbibed
by suction. These analogies are equally conspicuous among the _Molluscæ_.
The _Phytiphages_ of Lamarck (of which the garden snail is a good example),
are furnished with jaws and masticate their food: the _Zoophages_ of the
same accurate observer, have their mouth elongated into a retractile trunk
or proboscis, by which they pierce through other shells, and suck the
juices of the inhabitant. To insist on the importance of these
distinctions, employed as they have been to characterize primary divisions,
is surely unnecessary. That they will be subject to considerable
modification, in the subordinate groups, may naturally be expected: but we
refrain at present from offering an opinion on the nature of such groups,
dependant, as they must be, on greater anatomical knowledge than we yet
possess. Nevertheless, until more direct analogies are discovered, than
those here stated, we feel some confidence in employing them as _typical_
distinctions of the two great divisions of _Gastropod Mollusca_.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: PSARIS _Jardinii_
_Jardine's Saris._]
PSARIS Jardinii.
_Jardine's Saris._
----
Family Todidæ.--_Nob_. Sub-family Psariana.--_Nob_.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
_Bill_ thick, strong, more or less depressed, culmen not elevated, both
mandibles notched, the upper convex: _nostrils_ round, nearly naked:
_rictus_ smooth; _mouth_ very wide. _Wings_ long, pointed, the second and
third quill longest. _Tail_ short, even.
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Cinereous white; head, tail, and outer half of the wings, black: first
and fifth quill equal: spurious quill none; orbits plumed._
In Mus. Nost.
----
In a small collection of birds, from the interior of the vast Empire of
Brazil, we met with this new and highly interesting species. Its
resemblance to the well known _Psaris Cayanus_ is so close, that even
Ornithologists would not at first suspect the difference; and this may
possibly account for its having been overlooked. The size and colour of the
two birds, in fact, are perfectly alike: but in this, the bill is much more
depressed; the orbits, instead of being naked, are covered with feathers:
and the spurious intermediate quill is entirely wanting. Our bird thus
presents not only the characters of a species, but a modification of form,
leading to the genus _Pachyrhynchus_ of Spix.
Our friend Sir William Jardine, Bart., who has long felt, with us, a
peculiar interest in this group, will accept our dedication of this species
to him, as a proof of the estimation in which we hold his studies.
The publication of _Psaris Cuvierii_ in the early series of our work, was
the first addition made to this group after its publication in the _Regnè
Animal_. The generic name of _Psaris_ soon after became familiar to British
Ornithologists, by being universally adopted. Recently, however, the Editor
of the Zoological Journal has expressed his opinion that this name, on the
score of priority, should give place to another. The question would be of
little moment did it merely concern this group; but involving, as it does,
the entire nomenclature of two systems, it becomes a matter of some
importance to ascertain their respective claims. The period of typographic
publication, as connected with the only process by which knowledge can be
universally communicated, is the only criterion, in our opinion, by which
such claims should be decided. Dates, if _truly affixed_, speak for
themselves. But to attain this advantage, no surreptitious or disreputable
practices can be allowed. A plausible claim may indeed be made by any
author, who hastily puts together an essay or pamphlet, for the sole
purpose of anticipating the patient labours of another: but such artifices,
when discovered, are sure to be discountenanced by honourable minds. To
illustrate our meaning better, we will state a case.
Let us suppose, then, a learned Naturalist, in charge of a public museum,
is engaged in a general classification of the animal kingdom: that to the
type of each group, as progressively defined, he affixes a label, with the
proposed name, and returns it again to the public rooms. Let us further
suppose that an Ornithologist, wishing to make a new system, but without
any materials for so doing, goes to this museum, selects, as they are
successively named, these identical types for his examination, well knowing
by whom, and for what purpose they are so named. He then goes home, and
publishes, with all expedition, an ill-digested pamphlet, _wherein every
group appears under a name, totally different from that by which he became
acquainted with it_.
It is not for us to make the application. But that such practices have been
resorted to, is well known among the highest scientific authorities in
Paris. It is not so much in justice to a distinguished individual, as our
respect for the broad principles of truth and honour, that we have said
thus much. These are grave charges, but they are not lightly brought
forward. Resting, as they do, on testimony the most unquestionable, we
should deem it almost insulting to our countrymen could we suppose they
will henceforward, by adopting these names, countenance a claim built on
such a fraudulent basis.
Our views of the natural situation of this group, must be reserved for the
next number.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: PETROICA _multicolor_.
_Scarlet breasted Robin_]
PETROICA multicolor.
_Scarlet-breasted Robin._
----
Family Sylviadæ.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
_Bill_ slender, the sides compressed, the tip gradually bent, and beset
with bristles at the base. _Wings_ long; the first quill spurious; the
second intermediate in length between the sixth and seventh. _Tarsi_
elevated, the inner toe manifestly shorter than the external toe. _Tail_
broad, even.
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Head, throat, and upper plumage black; front snowy; wings with one
longitudinal and two oblique white bands; breast and part of the body
scarlet; belly dull white._
Red-breasted Warbler. _Lewin. Birds of New Moll. pl. 17._
Muscicapa multicolor. _Gen. Horsf. & Vig. Linn. Tr. v. 16, p. 243._
Red-bellied Flycatcher. _Lath. Gen. Hist. 6, p. 209, pl. 100?_
Mus. Nost. &c.
----
The analagous resemblances between the species and groups of one region,
and those by which they are represented in another, are among the most
curious and remarkable facts in Natural History: whether we look to them as
proofs of a Divine plan, vast in its extent, and wonderful in its details,
or as exemplifying that system of symbolical relationship by which every
part of the animated world is mutually connected. Both appear intended for
one great purpose, the partial initiation of man into earthly mysteries,
that he may have greater faith in those which regard his eternal welfare.
The Robin, spread over the whole of Europe, is represented in temperate
America by the Blue Bird of Wilson (_Sialia Wilsonii_, Sw.). Neither of
these are found in New Holland, but the bird before us may be considered
their representative. Lewin, who wrote upon the spot, observes that
although in some respects solitary, it frequents the abodes of man _in
winter_, like the Robin; which it further resembles in its note. Our
European bird is intimately connected with the Stonechats
(_Saxicolæ_).--The remark of another eye witness, proves the Australian
species to have the same relation. Mr. Caley mentions that he saw "this
bird in November" (_our European summer_), "when far distant in the
mountains, in the roughest part of the country I had then or since
visited." _Linn. Tr. 15. p. 245_. Mr. Caley, moreover, as if perfectly
aware of its natural affinities, names it the Australian Redstart. So
closely, in short, does this bird resemble our European Stonechat, that but
for the recent acquisition of more typical species, we should have had
doubts whether to characterize it as a distinct type.
Linnæan writers, as might be supposed, have always regarded this as a
Flycatcher, but as Mess. Horsfield and Vigors have recently dwelt, at some
length, on the propriety of such an arrangement, it may be as well to state
the leading differences between the two families. In _Muscicapa
atricapilla_, (with which these gentlemen have compared our bird,) the bill
(fig. 1, 2), like that of every genuine Flycatcher, is depressed from the
base to the tip, while that of _Petroica_ (fig. 5, 6), of the Stonechat
(fig. 3, 4), and of all _Saxicolæ_, although depressed at the base, is
invariably _compressed_ on the sides. By these characters the former
preserve their affinity to the Todies, and the latter to the Thrushes. In
the garnature of the rictus there is also an essential difference. The
bristles of the _Muscicapæ_ (f. 1, 2), are always rigid and directed
forwards: while those of the _Saxicolæ_, although sometimes remarkably
long, are generally weak, and diverge in different directions. Thus much
may be stated on the chief peculiarities of the groups in question: they
may for the present be termed analogies, but there are considerations which
induce us to suspect they are more intimately connected by affinity than is
generally supposed. To facilitate comparison, our figure is of the natural
size, and particular care has been taken in the correct delineation of all
the proportions and details.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: PLOCEUS _Textor_
_Rufous necked Weaver_]
PLOCEUS textor.
_Rufous-necked Weaver._
----
Family Fringillidæ?
GENERIC CHARACTER.
_Bill_ lengthened-conic, slightly curved, entire, the base advancing high
on the forehead, and dividing the frontal feathers, the culmen curved,
the commissure sinuated. _Nostrils_ oval, naked: without a membrane.
_Wings_ moderate, rounded, the first quill spurious, the five next nearly
of equal length. _Feet_ short, strong, the middle toe longer than the
tarsus, the hind toe nearly equal with the tarsus. _Tail_ very short,
rounded.
DIVISIONS OR SUB-GENERA.
MALIMBUS. _Vieil._ Bill more straight, slender, and lengthened.
PLOCEUS. _Cuv._ As above.
EUPLECTES. _Nob._ Bill of Ploceus. Toes and claws very slender. The
greater quills scarcely longer than the lesser; spurious quill very
minute. _Type_, Loxia Orix. L.
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Orange yellow, varied above with black: head, chin, and front of the
throat black: nape with a chestnut band._
Oriolus textor. _Auct._
Ploceus textor. _Cuvier. Reg. Anim._
Le cap-more. _Buff. Son. 19, p. 165. Pl. Enl. 375_ (_very bad_).
----
The Weaving Birds, confined to the hotter regions of the old world, are
chiefly found in Africa, where they represent the Hangnests (_Icterinæ_) of
America: an analogy long since remarked by Buffon. Both these tribes
astonish us by the consummate skill with which they fabricate their nests:
but the intelligence displayed by the African Weavers is still more
wonderful. The curious reader will see a most interesting account of these
birds in Paterson's African Travels, or in Wood's Zoography.
Of the present species, although very common in Senegal, nothing appears
known beyond the simple fact of its weaving, in confinement, between the
wires of its cage. Its total length is about six inches, the minor
proportions may be correctly ascertained by the scale on the plate.
If the genus _Ploceus_ of Baron Cuvier be restricted to the old world, it
becomes one of the most natural groups in Ornithology. Yet, like all others
of an extensive nature, it exhibits several modifications of structure,
which the present state of science renders it necessary to define. Whether
such definitions are to be termed generic, subgeneric, or sectional, must,
in the first instance, depend on mere opinion. It is enough if these lesser
groups are defined. To ascertain their relative value is the next step:
this is the second, and by far the most difficult process, in the study of
real affinities; for not only that particular group which claims our
attention, but every other related to it in a higher division, must be
patiently analyzed. Hence it frequently results that groups assume a very
different _apparent_ station to what they did in the first instance. Are we
therefore to refrain from characterizing or naming them, because their
relative value cannot, in the first instance, be ascertained? We think not.
That _genera_ have been unnecessarily multiplied, no one can doubt, who has
looked beyond such circumscribed limits. And if forms of transision,
(generally comprising one or two species alone,) are to be so ranked, we
must immediately treble or quadruple the present number of ornithological
genera. The truth is, that many groups, which in our first process of
combination, we are obliged to distinguish, or perhaps name, will, in the
second, be united to others. So that it appears highly probable that the
number of genera, in ornithology, ultimately retained, will be fewer
perhaps than at present. We are, in short, but in the infancy of this
knowledge, and our genera, for the most part, must be looked upon as
temporary landmarks, to denote the ground gone over, and to be fixed or
removed as our views become more extended, by a wider analysis of qualities
and relations.
Total length 6½ inches, bill 7/10, wings 3-6/10, tarsi 9/10, middle claw 1,
tail 2½, beyond the wings 1¼.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: AMPULLARIA Pl. II
_1. Subcarinata 2. Nilotica_]
AMPULLARIA subcarinata.
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Shell reverse, thickish; whorls depressed near the suture, and marked by
a parallel line; spire short, obtuse; umbilicus large, open, slightly
carinated, and marked with an internal groove._
Ampullaria subcarinata. _Sow. Genera of Shells, f. 4._
----
The politeness of Mr. G. Sowerby has given us the opportunity of examining
this rare and little known species, first described and accurately figured
by himself. It was discovered, we believe, by Mr. Cranch, the ill-fated
naturalist who accompanied the unfortunate expedition to the Congo, in that
river. No specimens, we are informed, have subsequently reached this
country. The surface is rough, occasioned by irregular corrugated wrinkles:
the epidermis olive.
----
AMPULLARIA Nilotica.
_Shell reverse, thin, smooth, whitish, with an Olive epidermis finely
striated longitudinally; lower half of the basal whorl much contracted:
spire prominent, obtuse; operculum horny; umbilicus large, open, the
margin obtusely carinated._
----
The shell from which our figure was taken we received from Mr. G. Sowerby,
under the name of _Nilotica_, some years ago. Whether it is the same, or
specifically distinct from Lamarck's _Guinaica_, we have no means of
judging, otherwise than from the figures he cites of Chemnitz. If these are
accurate, there are many points of difference; but no doubt the Editor of
the _Bulletin des Sciences_, will have great pleasure in setting us right
upon this subject.
On attentively comparing the descriptions, given by Lamarck, of eleven
species of _Ampullaria_, with those we have characterized in different
works, we can only discover two instances wherein the same species have
been mentioned by both parties, under different names. Our _A. conica_, is
probably Lamarck's _virens_, and belongs to the genus _Pachystoma_, Guild.
The other instance is curious; in the Appendix to the Bligh Collection, we
described a remarkable variety of _A. fasciata_, under the sub-specific
name of _Canaliculata_. In the following month appeared the second part of
Lamarck's _Système_, wherein this variety appeared as a _species_, under
the very same name. It would almost appear as if the two accounts had been
written at the same moment. We have since had good reason to be confirmed
in our suspicion as to this shell being a mere variety of _fasciata_, from
a fine series of specimens sent us from Demerara. We take this opportunity,
however, of expressing a belief that our _A. leucostoma_, is the young
shell of _rugosa_.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: STOMBUS. Pl. 1.
_S. Peruvianus_]
STROMBUS Peruvianus.
----
Order Zoophaga. Family? Strombidæ.
Genus Strombus.--_Lam. Sys. 7. 199._
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Shell ponderous, nodulous, spire very small, depressed; outer lip above
produced and attenuated, margin reflected; aperture striated._
Strombus Peruvianus. _Sw. in Phil. Mag. 62, p. 377._
----
We first recorded this singular-shaped Strombus from a specimen sent from
the Coasts of Peru. Others, from the opposite side of the American Isthmus,
collected near Panama, have more recently come into the possession of our
friend, the Rev. J. Bulwer, F.L.S. Its general form is not unlike _S.
gallus_, but the spire is unusually depressed, and the aperture deeply
striated: the upper surface is marked by parallel grooves, and one of the
nodules is particularly large.
In our last number we defined what appear to be the leading forms among the
_Strombii_, from such characters as are exhibited by their shells. This
mode of classification, we admit, is always attended with hazard; and
should not be ventured upon without due precaution. To attempt a _natural_
arrangement of the higher groups, on such considerations alone, would be
manifestly absurd. On the other hand, we think both principles may be
carried too far: and that a system founded exclusively upon the animal
would, in our present state of knowledge, be little less artificial than
another taken merely from the shell. We see, on every side, throughout
Nature, the most beautiful and perfect adaptation of structure to use. The
typical _Mollusca_, whether among the _Acephala_ or _Gasteropoda_, appear
to be testaceous; and to exhibit a corresponding perfection in the
structure of their coverings: one form passes into another by as gradual
modifications of the shell, as could possibly be looked for in the nature
of the animal. We have attempted to exemplify this among the _Unionidæ_ and
the _Olivæ_. We shall now examine the _Strombii_ with reference to the same
object.
"_Les Aileés_," observes Lamarck, "_constituent une famille très-naturelle,
qui avoisine celle des Canaliferès par ses rapports, mais qui en est
éminemment distincte_." This able classifier (whose perception of
affinities is truly admirable), then proceeds to divide these shells into
three groups, founded upon such excellent distinctions, that we need not
here dilate on their importance. Two of these genera are characterized by a
deep and well defined sinus or notch, towards the base of the outer lip;
quite distinct from the basal canal, and intended either for the passage of
the animal's proboscis, or its respiratory siphon. In _Strombus_ the outer
lip is dilated, but entire; in _Pteroceras_, it is equally enlarged, but
divided into long processes. Such are the typical distinctions, and their
immediate union appears effected by the _Strombus laciniatus_ of Chemnitz.
The third genus of Lamarck's is _Rostellaria_, in which he places all those
species wherein the sinus above mentioned is united to the basal canal. Now
if the _Strombus pespelecani_ of authors had this canal more closed, and
the sinus distinct, it would be a _Pteroceras_. Da Costa long ago placed
this shell as the type of a genus, and the observations of Mr. Dillwyn, in
his short but highly valuable paper on fossil shells (Phil. Trans. for
1823, p. 1, p. 393), have shewed the importance which we should attach to
its structure: it is, in fact, a _Pteroceras_, but with the above mentioned
sinus removed to the base of the digitated lip, and confounded, as it were,
with the basal canal. Excepting to a _Pteroceras_, it cannot be compared
with any known shell, unless it be to the _Strombus fissus_ of Linn. The
hiatus between them certainly appears great, yet the affinity is not
interrupted by any thing known: this latter shell resembles the true
_Rostellariæ_, but with the digitated processes of _Pteroceras_ reduced to
teeth; which teeth, in _R. curvirostris_, become confined to the basal part
of the unexpanded lip. We are here met by certain fossil shells, preserving
the form of _Rostellaria_, but with the outer lip entire, and sometimes
considerably expanded: in these the spiral canal sometimes extends to the
summit of the shell: finally the distinct sinus again appears in such
species as _S. cancellatus_, _canalus_, &c., all which have been classed by
conchologists with _Strombus_. This series is sufficient to shew the
_tendency_ of a circular disposition of relations, but very many of the
intermediate forms are wanting, nor is it at all clear in what way the
immediate passage is effected between _Hippochrenes_ and the genuine
_Strombii_.
* * * * * *
[Illustration: OLIVA. Pl. 1.
_1. volutella 2. striata_]
OLIVA volutella.
----
Class Mollusca. Order Zoophaga. _Lam._
Genus Oliva. _Lam. Sys. 7, p. 416._
----
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
_Shell ovate-conic, mitriform; chestnut, the body whorl bluish; spire
lengthened, acute; pillar with 6-7, slender, regular plaits._
Oliva volutella. _O. testâ ovato-conicâ, subcæruleâ, ad spiram basimque
luteo fuscatâ; spirâ valdè productâ, acutâ._ Lam. Sys. 7, 1, p. 432.
----
We are indebted to the Rev. Mr. Bulwar for our specimens of this elegant
and highly interesting species, received by him from the American Isthmus.
It varies much in the intensity of its colour, as may be seen from the
above description, given by Lamarck, of examples procured by Baron Humbolt
on the shores of Mexico.