venerable collector alluded to was expressed, it must be admitted that
in point of beautiful simplicity this shell has never been surpassed by
any subsequent discoveries in the southern hemisphere; and it is no less
singular than certain that the price of twenty guineas, which that
collector named upon an imaginary valuation, has become the average
standard value of a fine shell of this kind for some years past. At
present they are more highly prized, because it is now pretty clearly
ascertained that they are no longer to be procured among the natives of
Otaheite; and for this reason it is much more likely they will reach a
still higher price than that the value of them should diminish. The
shell we have represented is to be considered as a very fine specimen in
respect to size as well as colour.
-----
Footnote 24:
We learn from Labillardière, one of the Naturalists attached to the
expedition of Admiral Bruni d’Entrecasteaux, who went in search of La
Perouse in 1791, 1792, 1793, that this report is true. When the French
ships _Recherche_ and _Espérance_ touched at Tongataboo, there
happened to be peace between them and Fidgi, and as usual when they
are not at war, a considerable commerce was at that time carried on
between them. This brought Vouacecee, one of the chiefs of Fidgi, to
Tongataboo soon after the French had cast anchor, and as he paid them
frequently a visit, they were able to collect from him some useful
information. Vouacecee represented Fidgi to be very high land, of
great fertility and lying distant in the north west direction about
seventy-two _myriametres_. The myriametre reduced to our standard is
six miles, one furlong, one hundred and fifty-six yards, and six
inches, giving in total value about one hundred and forty-nine
leagues, or four hundred and forty-seven miles. In the most favourable
weather with the large double canoe the voyage to Fidgi from thence
could not be less than three days, and when they had to struggle
against the south winds they must ply to windward upwards of a month.
The people of Tongataboo told them the people of Fidgi were cannibals:
Vouacecee strove to exculpate himself by answering that it was only
the _touas_, or people of the lowest class, who eat human flesh. But
the assurances of the natives of Tongataboo were fully confirmed in
other quarters, and Labillardière who observes they devour their
enemies to satiate their fury, is entirely satisfied the chiefs as
well as touas are _Anthrophagi_. These people, notwithstanding this
atrocity, are represented as being far more advanced in arts and
industry than the people of other islands, who receive from them in
time of peace many articles of ingenious workmanship and produce of
their island, and it is, no doubt, by this means that the _Orange
Cowry_ has been introduced among the natives of Otaheite and other
islands in those seas.
Besides its being satisfactory to ascertain beyond any doubt the
habitat of the Orange Cowry, the Conchologist is assured that other
shells of the most choice and valuable kinds inhabit the seas of this
island, for which reason it is presumed the above information may not
prove altogether unimportant.
Footnote 25:
We should not omit to mention that this shell was called _Aurora_ by
Dr. Solander about the same time, _Vide_ his MS. Whether he was
indebted to this circumstance for the hint of so naming it, or on the
contrary that the gentleman was aware of the name which Dr. Solander
intended for it, is now beyond our means of ascertaining. It is more
obvious that Chemnitz, and after him Lamarck, have received the name
Aurora from one or both of these sources, although the anecdote may be
itself forgotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
_33_
_London. Published by E. Donovan & Mess.^{rs}
Simpkin & Marshall Feb. 1, 1823._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORNITHOLOGY.
PLATE XXXIII.
PSITTACUS MACULATUS
SPOTTED BREASTED PARRAKEET.
PICÆ.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
Bill falcated; upper mandible moveable and in general covered with a
cere: nostrils rounded, placed in the base of the bill: tongue fleshy,
obtuse, entire: feet formed for climbing.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
Green: crown, hind, head and nape black: temples cinereous: throat,
neck, and breast fuscous with the margins of the feather sulphureous:
shoulder scarlet: rump and middle of the abdomen sanguineous.
PSITTACUS MACULATUS: viridis: vertice, occipite, nuchaque nigris:
temporibus cinereis: gula, collo, pectoreque fuscis marginibus
pennarum sulphureis: humeris coccineis: uropygio abdomineque
medio sanguineis.
* * * * *
A very rare species of the Parrakeet tribe, and which is presumed to be
a native of South America.
The length of this bird is nine inches and a half; the bill and legs
blackish. The prevailing colour of the plumage green, front and crown of
the head blueish green, the rest of the head and neck black: the
feathers upon the face glossed with blue: a large ovate cinereous spot
on the cheeks: throat and breast black varied with pale yellowish
scollops, the margin of the feathers being a pale sulphureous yellow,
the disk black: the black disk usually forming a kind of triangular spot
with the point tending downwards. The wings are green, except the quill
feathers, which are blue, and the butt of the wing or shoulder the
colour of which is scarlet. The body beneath green with a large spot of
sanguineous-purple on the abdomen. The lower part of the back and rump
the same sanguineous purple colour as the abdominal spot: tail above
green, the feathers purplish towards the end; beneath rufous brown.
This curious bird is nearly allied to _Psittacus Squammosus_, the _Scaly
Breasted Parrakeet_, and in no very remote degree with another kind of
Parrakeet, the _Wavy Breasted Parrot_, _Psittacus Lineatus_. The first
of these our bird exceeds by at least an inch in length, the other by an
inch and a quarter. Instead of the dark colours of the head, as in our
bird, the head and neck of P. Squammosus are dull orange. The darker
colouring of our bird assimilates more nearly with _Psittacus Lineatus_,
but in other respects is entirely different. We have considered it as a
new species, at the same time that it must be observed from the very
close analogy that prevails between this bird and the Scaly Breasted
Parrakeet, it may possibly prove hereafter to be the adult bird of that
kind rather than a distinct species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
_34_
_London. Published by E. Donovan & Mess.^{rs}
Simpkin & Marshall, March 1, 1823._
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCHOLOGY.
PLATE XXXIV.
TEREBRATULA SANGUINEA
SANGUINEOUS LAMP-ANOMIA,
TEREBRATULA,
OR,
LAMP COCKLE.
BIVALVE.
GENERIC CHARACTER.
Shell inequivalve regular, somewhat triagonal: upper valve imperforate,
lower valve beaked above the hinge, the beak usually incurvate,
perforated at the tip, or grooved, for the passage of a short tendinous
pedicle, by means of which it adheres to other bodies: Hinge with two
teeth, and furnished with two osseous elevated and furcated processes
arising from the disk of the upper or smaller valve, destined to support
the animal.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.
Shell red, ventricose, suborbicular, longitudinally ribbed: upper valve
depressed in the middle; the lower with the back elevated.
TEREBRATULA SANGUINEA: testa rubrâ ventricosa, suborbiculata,
longitudinaliter costata: valva superiore in medio excavato:
inferiore dorso elevato, apice incurvato perforato.
ANOMIA SANGUINEA. Obovata longitudinaliter sulcata, triloba; sinu
profundo, nate producta latere angulata foramen ambiente.
_Solanders MSS.—Hab. in O. Pacifico. G. R. Forster._
ANOMIA SANGUINEA. _Portland Catalogue._
ANOMIA SANGUINEA. _Leverian Cat. sec. part. p. 15._
ANOMIA SANGUINEA. _Dillwyn’s Conch. 1. 293. 21._
TEREBRATULA SANGUINEA. _Leach. Zool. Misc. t. 76._
TEREBRATULA SANGUINEA. _Lamarck Anim. sans. Vert. T. 6. p. 1. p. 243._
Lampas Sanguineus, La Sanguinolente (Anomia Sanguinea S.) _Calonne Cat.
Humph. MS._
* * * * *
This is one among the number of those very choice accessions to the
Conchological knowledge of the last century, that was derived from the
scientific labours of our first circumnavigators in the Southern Ocean:
it occurred to them upon the coast of New Zealand, not in any abundance,
but so far plentifully that after the Banksian Cabinet was supplied
there were several specimens to spare for distribution among the friends
of Sir Joseph Banks, Dr. Solander, and Captain Cook. From this little
store the species passed in the first instance into several collections,
and among others into that of the late Duchess of Portland, Dr.
Chauncey, Mr. Cracherode, Mr. G. Humphrey, and some others. It has since
occurred, but not in any abundance to later voyagers in those seas. And
it is reputed also to have been met with in the Straits of Magellan.
The specimen of this rare shell which we have delineated, and which
always was considered as one of the largest of its species known, once
constituted part of the Testaceological collection of Sir Ashton Lever,
having been presented to that eminent collector by Captain Cook, at the
time of his return to England after his first voyage. There is a small
hole pierced through the upper valve of this shell, and which, in the
absence of all other information, induces the persuasion of its having
been originally suspended like several other shells we have already
mentioned, as an ornament or appendage to the dress of some New
Zealander; the aperture being so designed that the two valves could
easily have been kept together by means of a string passing through this
hole of the upper valve, and the opening in the beak of the lower one.
The animal inhabitant is probably eaten by the New Zealanders, who
besides being cannibals, subsist chiefly upon the marine productions of
their shores, which their wives and female children obtain daily for
them by swimming and diving into the sea. There is a rare species found
in the Mediterranean Sea, Anomia Vitrea of Gmelin, which nearly
approaches this species in point of size, and is eagerly sought after,
we are told, by the people of those parts as a delicious food. We
should, however, imagine from its scarcity, that it is only at the
tables of the rich that this luxurious repast appears.
In adopting the genus Terebratula for the shell before us, some
explanation may be expected for our departure from the Linnæan
classification, for in the system of that author it is one of the Anomia
Tribe, the term and character of Terebratula not being recognised by
that author as generically distinct from the Anomia. Our reasons for
this deviation shall be explained as briefly as it is possible: from the
nature of those remarks, and the extent of enquiry with which it is
connected, this cannot however be comprised within very slender limits.
In the Linnæan arrangement, the Anomia form a very comprehensive genus,
and since in particular the fossil species are included it should
certainly have been divided into several distinct sections or families
in order to embrace the different tribes of those shells, which
according to the character Linnæus has given of the genus must
necessarily be referred to it. It is impossible without some
modification of this kind to reconcile _Anomia Ephippium and Cepa_, with
_Anomia Caput Serpentinus_ or _Terebratula_, or either of them with _A.
Placenta_; and there are besides these some other families which do not
well accord, and which might perhaps be separated into distinct genera
with great advantage, the fossil kinds especially, which are very
numerous and much diversified in structure. It cannot be very material
whether they be so divided into genera or be placed in different
families under the general appellation of Anomiæ: they are obviously
very dissimilar and should be kept apart, and we have examples of both
these modes of classing the Anomiæ among the early Naturalists.
A late french writer, M. Bosc, speaking of this tribe of shells,
observes, that Linnæus having confounded the _Terebratules_ with the
_Anomies_, Bruguière first established their differences, and Lamarck
had fixed their characters. This observation is not sufficiently
explicit, and may possibly imply more than the author of it has
intended. It assumes as a conclusion that Linnæus committed an error in
confounding these two genera, without informing us in what state of
arrangement Linnæus found them. It may be inferred from this that they
had been more accurately discriminated before his time, or on the
contrary, that they never had been classed in any form, and that it was
the want of knowledge in Linnæus which led him to confound shells
together that were generically distinct. But whichever we are to
understand, the conclusion is, that Linnæus had confounded them, and
that it remained for Bruguière and Lamarck to reform those errors of
Linnæus, which all later Naturalists had left uncorrected, if not
unobserved. Now really this view of the subject is not fairly taken if
such an inference be intended. The result of a very little enquiry among
the authors who preceded Linnæus, or were immediately subsequent to him,
will assure us of the truth of this; and will convince us beyond a
doubt, that the discrimination of neither of those authors was necessary
either to furnish the Naturalists of the present day with the term
Terebratula; to determine the differences that exist between them and
the Anomiæ, or to fix the characters by which the Terebratulæ are
distinguished.
The Anomia genus, instead of being devised by Linnæus, or Terebratula in
particular, owing its invention to any modern writer, have been both so
long established that the greatest difficulty is to determine where in
the retrospect of authors our enquiries are to cease. Without proceeding
further back than the last two centuries, it may be observed that
_Fabius Columna_ in his work “De Purpura,” published at Rome in the year
1616, speaks of the Anomiæ; he calls them _Conchæ rariores Anomiæ_, and
from that period at least the term Anomia has been received among
Naturalists. Nor is the term Terebratula of much later origin. Da Costa
in his Elements of Conchology informs us that from the time of Fabius
Columna the word Anomia had become universal, that is as a general
denomination for all the shells which Linnæus subsequently placed
together under that name. The term Terebratula was given, says this
writer, by Gualtieri; in plate 96 of his work, Gualtieri figures three
recent kinds, and has made a particular genus for them, which he calls
Terebratula. And it is further added in another place “the Anomiæ are
bivalves with unequal valves, and never eared, the beak of the largest
or under valve is greatly produced, and rises or curves over the beak of
the smaller or upper valve, and is perforated or pierced through like a
tube, from which particular they have also obtained the name of
_Terebratulæ_.”
These remarks sufficiently establish the circumstance of the term
Anomia, being a comprehensive title for all the shells which Linnæus
subsequently placed together under that name, and also shews that we are
not indebted to either Bruguière or Lamarck for discriminating the
Terebratulæ. We can ever go further back in this particular than Da
Costa has done, for that able author is mistaken in supposing Gualtieri
to be the first writer who had proposed the genus Terebratula. Gualtieri
published his work in the year 1724, and we happen to possess among
other valuable MSS. of the celebrated Antiquarian, Hearne, the original
copy of Lluid’s Lithophylacia Britannica, as corrected for the press,
dated Montgomery, 1698, in which the genus Terebratula is distinctly
named: and this, as it appears from the date, was more than fifty years
before the time of Gualtieri; and we have also the authority of our
english Lister in 1694 for the like distinction. All these writers, it
will be observed, preceded Klein, who has in a particular manner
described the genus Terebratula in his Methodus Ostraceologia, published
in 1753, but in which he does not speak of himself as having invented
that term. “TEREBRATULAS, _Luidiano_ titulo, vocamus DIACONCHAS
anomalas, rostro parterebrato, vid. _Nomencl. Litholog. Promotum_ hoc
titulo.” His genus _Concha_ ΤΡΊΛΟΒΟΣ, genus _Concha_ ADUNCA, genus
BURSULA, and genus GLOBUS, are all sub-divisions of the _Anomiæ Conchæ_
of other writers, divided according to their forms and other
peculiarities, and in which particular attention is paid to the
perforation or non-perforation of the beak; Trilobos being distinguished
as “_vertice integro_,” Bursula as _Terebratulæformes_ rostro non
perforato, &c. And we may lastly mention that from some original MSS. of
Da Costa, in our possession, it appears that Anomia was a general term
for the whole family, and _Terebratula Anomiæ lævis_ was the term by
which the English and other Naturalists, long prior to the middle of
last century, were accustomed to distinguish the same kind of shells
which in the modern nomenclature of Conchology is also named generically
Terebratula. Da Costa, as Librarian of the Royal Society, was in the
habit of correspondence with the learned men of his time throughout
Europe, and his local knowledge from this circumstance, though never
committed to the press, is not likely to be disputed.
We could proceed yet further, but enough has surely been advanced to
shew that so far from Linnæus having confounded the Terebratula with the
Anomia, he left them precisely as he found them, placing them after the
example of his predecessors, under the comprehensive term of Anomia,
which they had assigned to them. And we have also said enough to prove
that to ascribe the Genus Terebratula to either Bruguière or Lamarck can
result only from our ignorance of that information which in former days
was regarded as the best criterion of an able Naturalist, a correct
knowledge of the labours of his predecessors.
Under all its circumstances it may be a matter of some indifference to
the scientific Naturalist whether in the arrangement of the Anomiæ we
follow the concise method of the old writers and Linnæus among the
number, or the diffuse distribution of later writers. If we place them
in different families according to their characters, whether regarded as
sectional distinctions of Anomia, or as distinct genera, we shall at
least produce some consistency in the arrangement. But there is yet
another mode of arrangement which appears to be the favourite theme with
some Conchologists of the present day, and which it may be proper in
this place to mention, namely, the classification of shells according to
their animals. This has been attempted in the work of Cuvier, his “Règne
Animal,” and the result of this endeavour, so far as it relates to the
Anomia in particular, may in this place deserve our explicit
observation. In this work (_Règne Animal_) Cuvier endeavouring to class
the Anomiæ according to the animals known to inhabit them, as well as
those which he imagines for the fossil tribes, so disperses them, that
the Trochi, Turbines, Nautili, Volutæ, and indeed nearly the whole of
the _Univalves_ intervene between his two first genera of these
_bivalves_, Hyalæa and Anomia; and the Anomia tridentata of Forskahl,
which is the Hyalæa of this author, is placed with Clio (the shell of
which is our _Bulla Aperta_[26]) among the _Ptéropodes_. After the long
interval occasioned by this introduction of the Univalves we find
Anomia,[26] and Placuna, two of his genera together, but with another
tribe of beings, the animal inhabitants being of his class _Acéphales_;
and after another wide interval in which the bivalve Mya,[26] the
multivalve Pholas,[26] the univalve Teredo,[26] and the naked or
shell-less Ascidia, occur we find in a distant class among another tribe
of animals, _Mollusques Brachopodes_, the genus _Terebratula_. It is
here ascribed to Bruguière, as in other works it is assigned to Lamarck.
Such is the arrangement of this family in the _Règne Animal_ of Cuvier,
a form in which no cabinet, it must be acknowledged, could be arranged
without embracing the most unprecedented anomalies; nor can we doubt
that if the animals of the fossil Terebratulæ and Anomiæ were known, for
in this arrangement they rest on presumption only, they must be further
separated in such a system than they are at present, some being
perforated at the beaks, others imperforate, and some having the
aperture under the beaks, all which demonstrates a difference in the
structure of the animal, to whose use they were adapted.
From this analysis of the generical distinctions of the different
families of the Anomiæ we may now be permitted to return to the shell
before us, the object of our more immediate consideration, and
respecting which there appears to be no less misconception among late
later writers than we have found already respecting the genera.
It appears that Dr. Leach had some short time since published a figure
of this shell: his definition is altogether brief, and the information
he affords less explanatory than might be desired: he quotes no
authority or synonyms, and in his general description merely observes
that “It seems to be a very rare species, a few specimens only having
been received from New Zealand.” _Vide. Zool. Misc. p. 76._ Lamarck
assuming from these observations, as it may be presumed, that the shell
had not been previously noticed, unless it were an Anomia Capensis of
Gmelin, proposes it as a new species under the name of Terebratula
Sanguinea of Leach, at the same time that he rejects his specific
character, and assigns another to the species; the character given to it
as a new species by Dr. Leach is “_Testa sanguinea, subtillissime et
creberrime impresso-punctata, longitudinaliter costata, costis
simplicibus; antica uniundulata_;” that of Lamarck, “_Testâ oblongâ,
irregulari, rubrá, creberrimé impresso punctata; striis transversis
undulatîs; margine denticulato_,” to which is added, “_Habite—les mers
de la Nouvelle Zélande d’après M. Leach_.” This seems to shew that the
shell was only known to Lamarck, through the communication of the
last-mentioned writer; and the suggestion is the more probable since the
specimen in the British Museum has the same interrogation as to being
the Anomia Capensis of Chemnitz, that is annexed by Lamarck to his
description of the species. “Je crois qu’on doit donner comme synonyme
l’Anomia capensis Gmel., d’après la citation de Chemniz; mais l’individu
que j’avais sous les yeux, n’est pas assez entier pour affirmer ce
rapprochement.”