TABLE I. Showing the relative numbers of the sepals and petals in 17 distinct varieties, noticed in the examination of 2682 specimens. The added to the number of sepals, denotes that one additional sepal is placed more or less below the flower in the form of a bractea; denotes that one of the petals consisted of two agglutinated together, and having two nectariferous scales at its base; and,, that one petal was formed of three joined in the same manner.

TABLE II.-Stating the total number of instances of each of the several variations in each whorl which occurred in the whole number of specimens.

[A variety of the Ranúnculus Ficària L., or Ficària vérna Hudson, is cultivated in gardens, in the flowers of which whorls of petals, interior to the usual exterior whorl next to the sepals, occupy, and compactly fill up, the whole included space. Whether any stamens, or pistils, or portions of these, are produced amongst them, I have not examined. -J. D.]

Are Potentilla réptans, and Tormentilla réptans, distinct species? (VI. 251.)-In this neighbourhood Tormentilla rép tans has five petals in, I would at a rough guess say, three cases out of every four; and hence it is extremely difficult to distinguish between it and Potentilla réptans. The calyx of Potentilla réptans itself is, too, sometimes 8-cleft; and, when this circumstance is coupled with the former, I cannot conceive any imaginable specific distinction between it and Tormentilla réptans. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that they are only varieties of one species, dependent on differences of soil.-J. Jones. Gelly, Llanfair, Montgomeryshire, March 28.

1834.

ART. XII. Short Communications.

MALA CHIUS bipunctatus Babington is not M. ruficollis Panzer. (p. 178.)-"Plate 8. fig. 2.", or, as is probably intended, Part 8. No. 2., of Panzer, quoted by Mr. Dale (p. 178.) is Scólytus æneus, the Diáperis ænea of Panzer's Index Entomologicus, and of more modern entomological works; an insect of a totally different section of the Coleoptera, of which fig. 49. a is a correct outline. Malàchius rufficóllis (as Panzer

I

49
I

DARK

spells it), Part 2. No. 10., is correctly copied from his figure in d; and my figure b is a very good representation of M. bipunctatus described by me in this Magazine (V. 329.).— Charles C. Babington.

My friend Babington having sent me two specimens of his new Malachius, in order to make a sketch of it to illustrate his note, I have given representations of both of them, as they appear to be the sexes; b being evidently a male, and e a female, individual. This is a material point, from the peculiar structure of the extremity of the elytra, which thus appear to be appendiculated in both sexes of this species. The same occurs in Malàchius bituberculatus Steph. In M. ruficollis, on the contrary, the female, at least, has simple elytra. I only possess this sex, and do not know the structure of the elytra of the male; but in some species, as Malàchius rubricóllis and pulicàrius, the males have the extremity of the elytra irregular, and the females have it simple. In other species, M. bipustulàtus and æneus, the elytra are simple in both sexes. The construction of these terminal appendages of the elytra is very curious, and apparently dissimilar in the different species, requiring a more minute investigation than has hitherto been given to it.-J. O. Westwood. The Grove, Hammersmith, April 4. 1834.

Information on the Limneus elongatus Turton; on the British Limnei generally; and a Notice of the Difficulties with which British Conchology is at present beset. In answer to W.W. (p. 161.), I beg to observe that the genus Limnèus is at present ill understood; many of the species being ill defined, and no two authors, except mere copyists, agreeing which are veritable species and which varieties: in fine, it may be truly designated "rudis indigestaque moles." To disentangle the species, and rectify the errors of authors, would, I fear, in the present state of our knowledge, require greater talents and perseverance than fall to the lot of the generality of mankind. Neither the influence of external circumstances, nor the great differences observable in the various periods of growth, appear to have been hitherto sufficiently investigated; and a correct monograph on this genus would not only require the lyncean eye of a Jenyns [V. 374.], but the searching skill of a host of less accomplished auxiliaries. Linnæus describes only three or four species, which have been recognised as belonging to our country; while my manuscript list of the British land and freshwater shells (and which I intend shortly to have printed) enumerates no fewer than twelve or thirteen kinds which appear to me worthy of specific distinction.

With respect to the Limnèus elongatus Turton, Hèlix octanfrácta Montagu, H. octòna Pennant (p. 161.), and Lymnæ a leucóstoma Lamarck, they are all synonymes of one species. W. W. is, however, mistaken in supposing that the figure 32. in p. 161. is a correct delineation of the above

shell. It appears to be a truncated variety of the Buccinum palústre Müller, Hèlix palustris of most British authors, Limnæ us fúscus of Pfeiffer, and is perfectly distinct from the former; differing from it not only in the fewer number of its volutions, but in its whole contour, and in the last whorl being considerably larger or more inflated than the penultimate one. I have not the first edition of Pennant's British Zoology at hand; so I cannot say how far the figure of his H. octòna may agree with W. W.'s shell [fig. 32. p. 161.]. The H. octona of the second edition is a totally different species, common in the West Indies; but has, probably, no claim to be considered British, although described as such by nearly all our authors. It is arranged in the genus Bùlimus by Lamarck, but is in reality an Achátina.

Linnæus refers to a figure in Gualtieri's Index, as representative of his Hèlix octona; but this figure is, unfortunately, the Achátina acícula of Lamarck, and is wholly at variance with the description given by the illustrious Swede. Baron de Férussac is aware of this discrepancy; and, in his inimitable work on land and freshwater shells [V. 192.], candidly says, in reference to this species, "Nous ne connoissons pas la véritable espèce de Linné, dont la description ne convient ni à l'acicula, ni à notre octona." On the other hand, Professor Nilsson, a Swedish author, thinks he has discovered the long-disputed shell of Linnæus; and, in his excellent Historia Molluscorum Suecia, describes it under the name of Paludìna octòna, adding, "Hanc esse veram Helicem octonam Lin., et descriptio Linneana et patria utriusque docet.”

The unravelling of the discordant synonymes with which the lovely science of conchology is so thickly beset, is neither calculated to please the generality of readers, nor likely to inspire the uninitiated with a desire to taste the unalloyed sweets resulting from the pursuit of natural history. I will, therefore, conclude by observing, that, if W. W. of Southampton will favour me with his address, and a list of the shells found in his neighbourhood, we may, perhaps, be of farther use to each other by an exchange of specimens, as many species occur in the south which are seldom or never met with in more northern latitudes. —Joseph Kenyon. 7. Butler Street, Preston, April, 1834.

[In Silliman's American Journal for January, there is a "Description of some new species of freshwater shells from Alabama, Tennessee, &c., by T. A. Conrad." Eighteen species are described, and fifteen figured. They are of the genera Unio, Alasmodónta, Anodónta, Cyclas, Melània, Anculòsa, Planórbis, and Physa. The description is "to be continued."]

381

REVIEWS.

ART. I. Catalogue of Works on Natural History, lately published, with some Notice of those considered the most interesting to British Naturalists.

EDWARDS, Dr.: On the Influence of Physical Agents on Life. Translated from the French, with Notes by Dr. Hodgkin and Dr. Fisher. 8vo, 489 pages. Highley, London.

This is a work of high interest to the philosophical naturalist. The object of the author's researches is to examine and ascertain the effects, both separately and conjointly, produced by air, water, temperature, light, and electricity on the various classes of vertebrated animals. These agents, no doubt, almost always act simultaneously and conjointly, and and hence it must be a very difficult matter to discriminate the influences of one alone from those of the others. Dr. Edwards, however, has laboured most meritoriously and successfully to elucidate these dark arcana of natural science; and his work is the record of the almost countless, and in many instances very curious experiments he has performed, and of the highly interesting conclusions to which these experiments have conducted him. His original views, which are numerous and valuable, having been rigidly scrutinised and confirmed by the researches of others, we may place the most implicit reliance on their authenticity and correctness. Dr. Edwards is, indeed, an honour to his country (he is an Englishman); his work evinces the most unwearied industry, and, at the same time, great penetration, ingenuity, and judg He is quite an original thinker, and his mind is evidently stamped with the signet of true philosophy. — J. J. May, 1834.

Jardine, Sir William, Bart. F.R.S., &c.: The Naturalist's Library. Vol. III. Gallinaceous Birds. 6s.

The pictures of this class of birds (the pheasants, turkey, pea fowl, Guinea fowl, &c., but especially of the pheasants) are, as might be expected, striking for their splendour: they are, besides, enriched with landscapes. A "Memoir of Aristotle," with an engraved head of this naturalist, is prefixed to this volume. The memoir occupies 98 pages.