Chapter IV: Part 4

As these reversed shells are of very rare occurrence, the price they bear is of course of considerable. Very few of the Pagodas possess such an inestimable treasure as a _Chank reversed_, they will command a price in Asia surpassing infinitely any idea that might probably be formed upon the subject. Four or five hundred dollars have been given in China, among the worshippers of Brahma, for a shell of this kind. In India they have been known to produce from one hundred to two hundred rupees, sometimes, three, four, or five hundred rupees, or perhaps a larger sum. The shells of this kind, which are purchased from the natives and brought to Europe, it may be imagined, for this reason, can have been obtained only at a considerable cost. It was principally through the unrivalled liberality of the Conchologists of the low countries, about the beginning of the last century, that the cabinets of Europe became possessed of these rarities, and they still remain extremely scarce.

Only two examples of those reversed shells have occurred to our observation: both were of that kind in which the spire is elongated; the high spired Turnip Shell of the English cabinets. One of these reversed shells we saw in the year 1797, in the celebrated collection of Mon de Calonne, ci-devant Minister of France, and which passed, at a considerable price, into the collection of the Earl of Tankerville. The other occurred in the late Leverian Museum, which was distributed by public auction, in the year 1806. This last-mentioned shell was in a less perfect condition than might be wished; it was worn and mutilated, and for this reason did not obtain by any means such a price as was expected from its rarity: it produced only _seven guineas_, a sum considered much beneath its real value, even in its injured state.[16] In the month of April, in the year 1815, the same shell appeared in the sale of certain effects, the property of the Duke de Bourbon, at his residence in Great Ormond Street, Portman Square, where it was sold, we believe, at an advanced price. It is the figure of this last-mentioned shell that appears in the present plate. We have delineated the specimen with all faults for the sake of greater accuracy, and from a persuasion that the Naturalist would prefer a correct representation from an undoubted original, to any figure in which its actual defects might have been amended by the pencil of the artist. The shell is depicted in its natural size, and it will hence appear, is little inferior in point of magnitude to the generality of those shells of the same species which are not of the reversed kind. The species is sometimes known to grow to the length of seven or eight inches, but such examples are not common. Of the reversed kinds the Leverian specimen, as it has been emphatically denominated, is probably one of the largest known.

The smaller figure in the lower part of our plate is a representation of the same species in its usual form, and appears clothed or covered with the thick filmy epidermis, of a brown colour, with which the shell is naturally covered when in a living state. From this figure it will be perceived that the direction of the spiral wreath or whorls in the larger shell is exactly reversed, and that the mouth or aperture of the shell, which in the smaller figure appears on the right side, is seen in the reversed shell on the left. Thus upon the least comparison of the two figures, the true character of the reversed shell will be distinctly perceived.

We should not omit to mention that the smaller figure which represents the unreversed shell would appear of the same pallid hue as the reversed shell, upon the removal of the epidermis with which it is enveloped. Sometimes, however, when this common kind is particularly fine, the exterior surface is delicately tinged with a less pallid hue, and the pillar lip and opening yellowish, inclined to flesh colour. That particular kind or variety which in England is denominated the low spired or heavy Turnip Shell, is sometimes pleasingly diversified with more vivid tints, and the younger shells occasionally spotted with brown, upon a ground tinged with yellowish or buff colour. We have no knowledge of any reversed shell of this latter kind, excepting one which is in the Museum at Copenhagen.

-----

Footnote 14:

The Hindoos entertain the belief of a general deluge, not very
dissimilar to that of the Mosaic records. They admit, however, many
such catastrophes of the earth, and subsequent renovations through the
creative power of this attribute of Brahma, which they denominate
Vishnu. The Chank Shell refers to a deluge of the earth, anterior to
that which seems to accord with the sacred writ. The deliverance of
the earth from the Mosaic deluge they term the lotos creation, the
type of which is the expanded flower of the lotos, the indian _pedma_
emerging above the surface of the waters with Vishnu seated in its
centre.

Footnote 15:

Were it requisite to treat more amply upon this subject, it would be
in our power to produce abundant evidence of the prevalence of this
symbol of the sacred Volute, wherever Vishnu or his delegated power
appears. The rich repository of the India House, the British Museum,
and many private collections afford us some examples of the most
interesting kind. Some few of these are so immediately connected with
the object of our enquiry, that we feel persuaded no apology will be
necessary for their introduction.

In the collection of Lord Valentia is a four-sided cast in brass,
resembling a kind of pyramid, consisting of three low platforms, each
bearing idols, and surmounted at the summit by a tortoise. In several
Indian paintings mythologically adverting to the subject of the
creation, the tortoise is represented raising the new-born earth upon
its back above the waters, and it is usually seen in other
mythological paintings of the same subject bearing the throne upon
which Vishnu is seated, while the attendants, personified by various
beings, are lifting the earth from the deep. Such a painting was once
in the celebrated collection of Colonel Stuart: and we need no other
evidence to shew that the bronze of Lord Valentia’s collection is of
the same mythological nature, and referable to the deluge, than to
observe the Chank Shell placed at each of the four corners of the
ornament. We may comprehend the allusion of the tortoise raising the
earth from the waters of the deluge, from a trait of the ancient
Chinese astronomy; by the tortoise bearing the earth, they intended
the north pole of the ecliptic, which, at the time of the deluge, they
maintained had not materially changed its position, and that by this
means the world was sustained and saved from utter annihilation.

An Indian painting, mentioned by Mr. Edward Moor, the author of the
Hindoo Pantheon, presents us with another deity, Sivi, who holds the
Chank Shell in one of his four hands, and the antelope (moon) in
another.

There is also an Indian painting of Devi, who appears holding a Chank
Shell, furnished on each side with a lateral lappit or wing: this
symbol he holds in one hand, and the wheel, the emblem of the
universe, in the other; and in a bronze of Vishnu, in the India House,
we find the Chank Shell ornamented in a similar manner.

We have seen another indian painting, in which, not only the Chank
Shell is furnished on each side with alæ, or wings, but an expanded
flower of six petals is placed upon its pinnacle. This shell, if we
may judge from its outline, is of that kind which has the spire
depressed. Lord Valentia is in possession of a bronze cast, in which
Vishnu appears reclined upon his couch of serpents, attended by
_Lakshmi_ and _Satyavama_, (eternity) in which the shell is also
winged, and appears to be of that kind in which the beak is elongated
or produced; and if this conjecture be correct, it will appear that
the Hindoos venerate indiscriminately, and probably as the same shell,
each of those three varieties of Voluta Pyrum, which we have mentioned
in another part of this description. Our limits will only permit us to
observe that we believe we may add with some degree of certainty, that
the reversed shell, the more immediate object of our present
dissertation, may sometimes appear also: there is in the temple of
_Visweswara_, at Benares, a sculpture of Surya, the Indian
personification of the sun, seated in his chariot driven by Aruna, in
which the _Chank Shell_ held in his right hand appears to have the
aperture on the left side instead of the right, as in the usual growth
of the shell. If this be not an oversight of the copyist (_Mr. Moor_)
the circumstance deserves peculiar notice.

Footnote 16:

Vide Catalogue _Lev. Mus._ “Last day, July 12th, 1806, lot 77. _The
reversed variety of the High Spired Turnip, from Madagascar_,
extremely rare. £7. 7s.” p. 15.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_22_

_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall, Nov.^r 1. 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCHOLOGY.

PLATE XXII.

VOLUTA PYRUM
PEAR VOLUTE.

_Back View._
UNIVALVE.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Spiral; aperture without a beak, and somewhat effuse: pillar twisted or plaited, generally without lips or perforation.

**** FUSIFORM.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Shell obovate and slightly tailed with striated whorls on the spire: tip produced and glabrous: pillar with three plaits.

VOLUTA PYRUM: testa obovata subcaudata spiræ anfractibus striatis; apice
producto glaberrimo, columella triplicata.—_Gmel. Syst. Nat. T.
1. p. 6. 3463. 102._

* * * * *

In the preceding plate (plate 21) we have introduced to the attention of our readers a figure of that truly interesting rarity the reversed Voluta Pyrum, or Pear Volute, or as it is better known in the familiar language of the English collectors by the appellation of the High spired Turnip Shell. The figure there delineated exhibits a frontal view of this shell, in which the characteristic aperture of the mouth is displayed to advantage. And in order that nothing on our part may be wanting to complete our observations on this very valuable curiosity, we have been induced to insert in the present instance, a back or posterior view of the same shell.

We have already entered so fully into the history of this shell in the description of the former plate, as to render it, we may presume, superfluous to dwell upon this subject further in the present instance. Our figure of the reversed shell, as in the former plate, is accompanied by a posterior view of a shell of the usual growth, (covered with its natural epidermis) and by the assistance of this figure, the contrary direction of the spiral wreath in the reversed shell becomes at once too obviously striking to escape attention.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_23_

_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall Nov.^r 1, 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORNITHOLOGY.

PLATE XXIII.

TANAGRA TRICOLOR
TRICOLOURED TANAGER var β.

PASSERES.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Bill conic, pointed, notched, nearly triangular at the base, a little inclining at the tip.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Shining green, beneath yellowish green; wing coverts violet: frontlet and upper part of the back black.

_Var_ β. Crown and chin violet: neck, and sometimes rump, orange.

TANAGRA TRICOLOR: viridis splendens, subtus viridi-flavescens,
tectricibus alarum violaceis, capirostro dorsoque superiore
nigris uropygio fulvo. _Lath. Ind. Orn. 428. 29._

TANAGRA TRICOLOR β. Tangara cayanensis varia cyanocephalos. _Briss. Sup.
p. 62. t. 4. f. 2._

TANAGRA TRICOLOR: viridis, capite, mento, jugulo et pectore pallide
thalassinis capistro nigro, cervice collique lateribus
viridi-aureis, gulæ macula magna dorsoque nigris, pectoris
fascia cærulea, abdomine crissoque ex flavicante viridibus.
_Gmel. T. 1. p. 2. 891._

TANGARA varié à tête verte de Cayenne.—_Buff. Pl. Enl. n. 33. f. 1._

β TANGARA varié à tête bleue de Cayenne.—_Buff. Pl. Enl. n. 33. f. 2._

* * * * *

The history of this splendid species of Tanager is unknown to Naturalists: we are aware only, that independently of the varieties arising from its different states of plumage, there are two pretty distinct and accurately defined varieties, one of which has the head of a fine green, the other of a rich blue. Some authors consider these two birds as specifically different, while others are as well assured they are the same. Dr. Latham observes that these birds are, without doubt, the same, differing only in sex, but which of them is the male is not ascertained. Some of the French writers, among whom is Vieillot, express a different opinion, for they assure us neither the female or the young are known, and they further add, that in the Brazils this bird is common, while in Guiana it is rare. Vieillot once regarded them as distinct species, but has subsequently described them as the same. Both birds, according to Dr. Latham, are from Cayenne; we have seen both kinds from the Brazils.

The size of this bird is that of the house sparrow: the rump is usually green, but in the blue headed variety, is sometimes flavous, more or less inclined to orange.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_24_

_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall, Nov.^r 1 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENTOMOLOGY.

PLATE XXIV.

PAPILIO THERSITES
THERSITES BUTTERFLY.

LEPIDOPTERA.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob: wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Wings tailed and yellow: border black: lower ones with yellow lunules.

PAPILIO THERSITES: alis caudatis flavis: limbo nigro, posticis lunulis
flavis. _Fabr. Ent. Syst. T. 3. p. 1. 88._

We may venture to affirm, with every degree of certainty, that there is no figure of this very beautiful species, extant, in the work of any previous author. Fabricius described it as a new species, under the name of Papilio Thersites; his description refers to a specimen in the cabinet of Dr. Hunter, but he has omitted to insert his usual reference to the drawings of Mr. Jones, among which that specimen was delineated, and from which we are well aware the Fabrician description of the species is derived. It is from those drawings, also, that we have been enabled to determine the species with perfect accuracy.

The magnitude of this Papilio renders it an object of peculiar interest; it is one of the most conspicuous insects of its tribe, and in point of elegance cannot assuredly be considered inferior to any of its numerous species. In the plate accompanying this description, the Papilio is represented in its natural size: the whole disk is of a fine yellow colour, with a deep black border: the posterior wings are marked with a series of yellow lunules, and another of brilliant blue spots, composed of little shining dots, of which the brightest are in the centre. Beneath, the breast, abdomen, and wings, are yellow: margin of the anterior pair black with a yellow streak, and a black streak of spots on the lower pair.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_25_

_London. Published as the Act directs, by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall, Dec.^r 1 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORNITHOLOGY.

PLATE XXV.

TROCHILUS ORNATUS
TUFTED-NECK HUMMING BIRD.

ORDER
PICÆ.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Bill subulate or awl-shaped; filiform, tubular at the tip, longer than the head: upper mandible forming a sheath for the lower. Tongue filiform, the two threads coalescing and tubular: feet formed for walking: tail composed of ten feathers in general.

** Bill straight.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Golden green, beneath glossy brown, crest rufous; and on each side, below the ears, a tuft of elongated rufous feathers with a green spot at the tip of each.

TROCHILUS ORNATUS: viridi aureus, subtus-nitente fuscus crista rufo:
infra aures utrinque pennis elongatis rufis apice macula viridi.

TROCHILUS ORNATUS: viridi-aureus, subtus nitente-fuscus, fascia uropygio
alba, crista (in mare) verticis et fasciculo pennarum infra
aures utrinque rufo.—_Gmel. Linn. Syst. Nat. T. 1. p. 497. n.
58._

TROCHILUS ORNATUS: viridi-aureus subtus fusco-aureus, crista rufa
abdomine infimo vittaque transversa uropygii albis, infra aures
utrinque pennis 6 s. 7 elongatis rufis apice macula
viridi.—_Lath. Ind. Orn. 318. 58._

Hupecol _Buff. Hist. Nat. des Ois. 6. p. 18._

Oiseau Mouche, dit Hupecol de Cayenne.—_Buff. Pl. enl. n. 640. f. 3._

TUFTED-NECKED HUMMING BIRD.—_Lath. Gen. Syn. 2 p. 784. 55._

* * * * *

The Tufted-Neck Humming Bird described by Buffon under the name of _l’Oiseau-Mouche de Cayenne_, _Le Hupecol de Cayenne_, differs in no respect that we perceive from the bird before us; and for this reason we can have no hesitation in considering it as an individual of the same species. Our specimen is not from Cayenne, it was brought from New Zealand, and was one among the number of those rarieties collected in that island by the celebrated Navigator Captain Cook, in his first voyage round the world: that in which he was accompanied by Sir Joseph Banks, and Dr. Solander. The New Zealand specimen, though it nearly accords with the bird described by Buffon under the name of Hupecol de Cayenne, does not entirely agree with the description given of that species by Dr. Latham: it differs in wanting the white band on the rump, and the patch or space of the same colour on the lower region of the belly. Buffon speaks of such a characteristic mark of white on the rump, but not the abdomen of the Cayenne kind.[17] And it is not unlikely that these appearances may be indications only of a change in plumage, as the same circumstance is not unfrequently observed in many other birds at particular seasons, or in certain states of moulting. Dr. Latham himself observes that in the female these marks, instead of being white, incline to rufous, and this, no doubt, in the adult bird. There is certainly no appearance of white either upon the rump or region of the belly in the bird before us; and this example bears every appearance of having arrived at its full maturity of plumage. Perhaps the bird from Cayenne having a white band on the rump and abdomen, may be, however, if not a distinct variety, the more mature bird of the same species as that met with by our circumnavigators at New Zealand.

There are species of this tribe more brilliant in colour and more richly varied in the disposition of those colours, but assuredly none more singular or pleasing in general aspect than the bird before us. In point of size the Tufted Humming Bird is one of the smallest species of its family, scarcely exceeding in that respect the figure delineated in the plate, for its total length is not above three inches, and its bulk proportionate. The head and upper part of the body, and also the wings above, are green with a golden lustre; the tail greenish, changeable to testaceous golden brown, and having the inner webs rufous. The throat is of a fine green colour, variable in different lights to a golden hue with a yellow or a brown metallic lustre, and below that the whole of the belly is a rich brown glossed with green and golden. On the head of the male bird is a crest of pointed feathers of an orange or testaceous brown colour, and on each side of the neck a tuft composed of elongated feathers, differing in length, and having the tips of a dark but brilliant green. These feathers the little creature has the power of raising or depressing at pleasure: when these are displayed in full array on each side of the green patch on the front of the neck, and the crest stands erect, which is invariably the case when the bird is offended or surprised, the appearance of this bird is altogether remarkable. The female has neither the ruff on the neck nor the crest, and its colours are in general more obscure than in the male. The bill is of a moderate length and straight, the legs very short and the feet diminutive.[18]

In the annexed plate this elegant little bird is seen perched upon a tuft of the

JACQUINIA AURANTIA, THE AUSTRALASIAN
ORANGE JACQUINIA,

in blossom; a plant that inhabits the New Holland and New Zealand, and which flowered in the month of July in the present year, at Kew.

-----

Footnote 17:

“Le dessus du corps est d’un vert-sombre, qui jette quelques reflets
dorés: les parties inférieures ne présentent que des couleurs
rembrunies.” _Buffon_

Footnote 18:

A New Zealand specimen of this rare bird, lot 6286, sold for the sum
of £2 10s. in the Leverian sale.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_26_

_London. Published as the Act directs by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall Dec.^r 1, 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCHOLOGY.

PLATE XXVI.

TURBO SCALARIS
WENTLETRAP.

ORDER
UNIVALVE.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Shell spiral, solid: aperture contracted, obicular, entire.
* _Umbilicate, or Perforated._

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Shell conic, pale fulvous with white ribs, whorls distant.

TURBO SCALARIS: testa conica, pallide fulva costis albis anfractibus
distantibus.

TURBO SCALARIS: testa cancellata conica: anfractibus distantibus.—Linn.
_Syst. Nat. 10 p. 764. n. 548._—_Mus. Lud. Ulr. 658. n.
351._—_Gmel. Linn. Syst. Nat. T. 1. p. 6. 3603. n. 62._

SCALARIA PRETIOSA: testâ conicâ, umbilicatâ inspiram laxam contortâ,
pallidè fulva; costis albis; anfractibus disjunctis, lævibus:
ultimo ventricoso.—_Lamarck Anim. sans. vertebr. 6. p. 2. 226.
1._

Wentletrap (scalaris).—_Rumpf. mus. t. 49. fig. A._—_Argenville Conch.
pl. 11. fig. V._—_Gualt. tab. 10. fig. 2. 7._

* * * * *

The Wentletrap is one of those extraordinary productions of the shell tribe that has been regarded with unabated admiration among Conchologists from the days of Petiver and Rumpfius, the earliest of the more recent race of Naturalists, down to the period in which we live. And, although it does not at this time bear a price so very great as that which it bore some years ago, it is yet considered as a shell of no mean value when it is large and in fine perfection: even those of a smaller size, when in good condition, are esteemed of value, at least in some proportion to those more estimable for their perfection.

The rarity of this choice and very curious shell arises from various causes. In the Chinese seas, which it chiefly inhabits, the species is very rare; it sometimes occurs upon the coasts of Coromandel, but sparingly, and in the other seas upon the coasts of India it is believed to be still more uncommon. These shells are, moreover, so very brittle that they seldom occur perfect, and more especially the larger ones, which in almost every instance is abbreviated or imperfect at the point or apex. And, it may be also added that like _Voluta Pyrum_, the _Sacred Chank Shell_, of which an explanation was given in a former plate, the Wentletrap is one of the sacred shells of the worshippers of Brahma, and consequently when found in fine condition, is sure to obtain a considerable price among the opulent devotees of that doctrine, the prevailing worship of the many millions of inhabitants that people India, China, and other vast regions of the continent of Asia. In China, shells of this kind, of a moderate size, are valued at from four to five, or even ten dollars a piece, those are shells of about an inch and a quarter in length, and such as exceed that size are considered in proportion valuable. In England a fine specimen about the same size last mentioned would be estimated in worth at little less than five guineas. The celebrated Wentletrap of the Leverian Museum was about two inches long, but as it exhibited little freshness of colour, it produced only eleven pounds. Since that period another specimen, a trifle larger, and with the same bleached or depauperated appearance in its tints of colour, was sold at the public hammer for twenty seven pounds. This is the highest price we have seen paid for a specimen of this curious shell: we have heard of fifty guineas being given by one collector for a shell of this kind. Considerable as this price may be deemed, it appears to have been exceeded in one, if not more instances, upon the continent. Denys de Montfort, speaking, as it may be presumed, of the low countries and France, informs us, that he has seen it sell, when the height or length has exceeded two inches, at two thousand four hundred livres, or one hundred Louis. It will be observed that he is alluding to shells about the same size as that delineated in the annexed plate, the outline of which is from the Leverian specimen; the colouring amended from a smaller but more recent shell.

These shells are of such a tender nature, and their colours so evanescent or so feebly fixed, that they almost constantly present a mutilated and bleached appearance. This is not, however, uniformly the case; we have very recently had an opportunity of inspecting several specimens of a moderate size, that were brought from China, and from these we perceive that the Wentletrap, when in fine order, is of a pale testaceous or rather fulvous hue; and inclining sometimes to yellowish. In some few specimens the ground colour of the shell, instead of being uniform, appears sprinkled with pallid spots and dots of a rounded form. Sometimes we are assured the colour inclines to rufous, or a reddish tint. Lamarck has this shell of a pale fulvous colour, with the ribs as usual, white, for he adopts this as part of the leading character of the species; his expression is “_pallide fulva_; _costis albis_.”

The animal inhabitant of this shell has the head armed with two feelers, each ending in a setaceous thread or hair: the eye is placed upon the tentacula at the base of this thread or hair, and it has also a kind of trunk at the mouth, by means of which it searches for its food amongst the sand and weeds. It is supposed to be of a carnivorous nature, subsisting on other marine worms. It is considered rather as a littoral species, frequenting the little sandy bays and creeks among the breakers upon the lower parts of the sea shore, and is to be sought for with the most probability of success among the sea weeds or fuci that grow in the pools of water lying in these sunken rocks, because in such situations it is most likely to find protection against the intrusion of the boisterous element. Occasionally it is seen, though rarely, crawling on the sands at low water.

In a natural classification of the shell tribe, should we ever arrive at an arrangement of Conchology, so perfect as to deserve that epithet, it would be a task of some difficulty to fix the precise station of the Wentletrap; for in the order of nature it presents anomalies which cannot easily be reconciled, and few authors are agreed upon this subject even in the artificial arrangements which they have been induced to adopt. Thus Rumpfius makes it a _Buccinum_, Davila a _Tuyau_, Argenville places it as a _Terebra_ (vis) and De Montfort Scalarus. In the Encyclopædia it is denominated Scalaria Pretiosa, and this name Lamarck retains.

The name of Wentletrap, by which this shell is now so well known, is derived from the Dutch Language, and signifies according to the technical phraseology of the Dutch architects in building, a winding stair case, or flight of stairs turning spirally round a central column, into which one end of every step is mortised as they ascend from the base upwards. The term Wentletrap, Wenteltrap, or as the Dutch sometimes call it, Wendeltrap,[19] is the name given by Rumpfius the Hollander to this shell, as a synonymous name with his latin term _Scalare_. It is an allusion, somewhat fanciful we must allow, to the disposition of the costal ridges upon this shell, and which when viewed laterally as they traverse or pass over the upper convexity of the whorls on each side, have the appearance of a flight of steps turning spirally round the body of the shell, just as a winding staircase would be carried spirally round a cone or sub-cylindrical body. The singularity of this species (for it is not a peculiarity or character even of the new genus Scalaria as established by Lamarck and Cuvier) consists in having the whole whorl of the shell, from the mouth to the summit, entirely unconnected, while in spiral shells the suture of the whorls is united throughout. The tube is perfectly detached from the mouth to the apex, and the whorls linked together only by means of the longitudinal ribs which traverse the tube at regular intervals, so that the only connexion of the whorls is at the junction of those ribs, which touching each other unite at that part which in regular spiral shells that have the whorls united, would be denominated the suture of the whorls.

Considering the very zealous propensity of some French Naturalists of the present day, and of their admirers in England, to create new genera upon every slight occasion, it becomes a matter of some astonishment that a character so very obvious as the disjunction of the tube from the aperture to the very summit should not have laid the foundation of a new genus, for the reception of this shell. Lamarck, however, places it at the head of his _Scalaires_, and one of the next species in succession is his _Scalaria Communis_, a shell perfectly well known by every Naturalist throughout Europe for nearly a century past under the name of _Turbo Clathratus_.[20] Nor is Lamarck singular in this very anomalous consolidation of shells so distant in this respect from each other; for Cuvier in his _Règne Animal_, after describing our present shell, the Linnæan Turbo Scalaris, as one of his _Scalaires_, and informing us it is distinguished by the whorls not touching each other, adds particularly that there is another species which has not that peculiarity, and that is the _Turbo Clathratus_. Nothing, however, can be more certain than that from this very circumstance these two shells are generically distinct from each other; Clathratus may be retained with the Linnæan Turbines, but Scalaris has nearly, if not entirely as much claim to the _Serpula_[21] as _Turbo_ genus; which cannot be said of T. Clathratus. We shall for this reason allow the Wentletrap to remain where Linnæus has placed it, namely, among the Turbines; not perhaps without some hesitation, but if we did remove it, we should certainly prefer the institution of new genus for its reception, instead of wandering from one anomaly to another, as we must perceive would be the case in the present instance by following the example of Lamarck and Cuvier.

It may be lastly observed that the progressive growth of this extraordinary rarity may be determined by the greater number of the longitudinal ribs that pass over and surround the tube of the whorls, for at each increase the animal forms a new mouth to its shell: the new mouth as it is protruded and formed, appears like the former ones, entirely surrounded by a rim or ring, and it is these rings of the mouths as they are formed in succession, that constitute the ribs which appear to traverse the shell as it is increased in length, and consequently in the number of its rings. Shells of a large size exhibit sometimes as many as fifty or sixty of such rings surrounding the tube or spire at regular intervals.

-----

Footnote 19:

_Wenteltrap_, _Wendeltrap_, Rondom gaande trap, met een spil daar al
de trappen in schroeven. _Marin._

Footnote 20:

_Vide_ Donovan’s British Shells, Vol. I. plate 28.

Footnote 21:

_Serpula_ Linn. _Vermicularus De Montf. Vermet_ Adanson. The animal of
the Serpulæ, it may be added further, does not differ, according to
Cuvier, from those of the Linnæan Genus Turbo, and consequently not
from Scalaria of Lamarck and Cuvier, as must be concluded from their
admission of Turbo Clathratus among the number of its species, in an
arrangement founded on the organization of the animal, as well as its
testaceous habitation. Cuvier himself observes that the animal of the
Vermet, and also the opening (of the shell) resemble those of the
Turbo, but that the whorls do not touch, and are in part irregularly
curved like the tubes of the Serpulas.—_Règne Animal T. 2. 419._ And
his classification further shews the analogy of these tribes of
shells, since the animal of the Linnæan _Turbo_, the _Vermets_ of
Adanson, and _Scalaria_ of Lamarck, are all of the same family, the
_Gastéropodas Pectinibranches_ of Cuvier.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_27_

_London. Published as the Act directs by E.
Donovan & Mess.^{rs} Simpkin & Marshall Dec.^r 1 1822._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENTOMOLOGY.

PLATE XXVII.

FIGURE I.

PAPILIO ZACYNTHUS
ZACYNTHUS’S BUTTERFLY.

ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob: wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.

* EQUITES TROJANI.—_Fabr._

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Wings indented, black: a spot on the anterior pair green and white: and one on the posterior wings palmated and sanguineous.

PAPILIO ZACYNTHUS: alis dentatis nigris: anticis macula viridi alba,
posticis palmata sanguinea.—_Fabr. Ent. Syst. T. 3. p. 1. p. 15.
n. 46._

PAPILIO ZACYNTHUS.—_Jon. fig. pict. 1 tab. 22._

* * * * *

It cannot fail to prove satisfactory to the Naturalist to be informed that we have the same sanction for presenting the annexed figure as that of the true PAPILIO ZACYNTHUS of _Fabricius_, as that to which we have several times adverted upon other similar occasions in the progress of the present publication, namely the hand-writing of that celebrated Entomologist, inscribed upon the original drawings of Mr. Jones. This is indeed a circumstance to which we cannot advert too frequently in our references, since it is upon that authority alone that we are now enabled to determine with any degree of precision nearly the whole of those new species of Papiliones, the existence of which has been made known throughout Europe by the classic writings of that author, but of which no other evidence is now extant; for most of the collections existing at the time Fabricius was in England, and to which he refers, have been long since dispersed, and but for the care of the late Mr. Jones of Chelsea, who had preserved these invaluable authorities to the scientific world, the labours even of Fabricius in this department had become comparatively of very little value.

Papilio Zacynthus is a species of the first family of Papiliones, the Equites Trojani. It has much the habit of Papilio Æneas, a well known insect, described by Linnæus, and which is figured by Roesel, Seba, Jablonsky, and some other authors; but upon an attentive comparison it will be found to be very different. Its great similarity renders it of more importance to point out precisely the difference that prevails between them, and this the present figure it is presumed will render distinctly obvious.

In the species P. Zacanthus the wings are black: in the middle of the first pair is a large spot composed of two distinct colours, the anterior part being white, the posterior green, but on the underside the spot appears entirely white. Papilio Æneas has also a spot of green upon the anterior wings but without any portion of white. Papilio Æneas is a native of India, Papilio Zacynthus is from the Brasils.

FIGURE II.

PAPILIO DIMAS
DIMAS’S BUTTERFLY.

ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob: wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.

* EQUITES TROJANI.—_Fabr._

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Wings indented: above and beneath black: on the anterior pair, a white spot divided by veins: on the posterior pair a palmate sanguineous spot.

PAPILIO DIMAS: alis dentatis concoloribus nigris anticis macula alba
venis divisa, posticis sanguinea palmata.—_Fabr. Ent. Syst. T.
3. p. 1. p. 16. n. 47._

PAPILIO DIMAS—_Jon. fig. pict. 1. tab. 23._

* * * * *

This, like the preceding, is a species we have been enabled to determine from the Fabrician MS. and the drawings of Mr. Jones. Fabricius, it appears, was not entirely decided in his mind whether the two Papiliones figured by Cramer, plate 29 fig. E, under the name of Hyppason, and that in the same plate, fig. F, named Euristeus, ought in reality to be considered as appertaining to this species; and preferring the name of Dimas which had been previously given to it by Mr. Jones, he has described it under that name, allowing the references to Cramer, above quoted, to remain as synonyms. The Naturalist may rely with implicit confidence upon its being the Papilio Dimas of Jones and Fabricius.

This is rather larger than the former, the general colour black: on the anterior wings, in the middle, is a large white spot, so situated upon the junction of the ribs that they pass distinctly through it and give the appearance of a spot cleft at the sutures. The sanguineous palmate spot on the posterior wings is six cleft: and besides this there is a small spot of red upon the scollops, between the dentations at the margin of the posterior wings. The colours and spots appear beneath as above, but only paler.

Papilio Dimas is a native of Brazil, and bears a near affinity to Papilio Anchises.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_28_

_London. Published by E. Donovan, & Mess.^{rs}
Simpkin & Marshall, Jan. 1, 1823._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCHOLOGY.

PLATE XXVIII.

MALLEUS MACULATUS
SPOTTED HAMMER SHELL, OR HOUND’S TONGUE.

* BIVALVE.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Shell subquivalve, rough, deformed, generally lengthened and lobed or hammer-shaped: beaks small and divergent. Hinge without teeth, a lengthened conic hollow situated under the beaks and traversing obliquely the facet of the ligament. A lateral slope or groove at the side of the ligament for the passage of the byssus or beard with which the animal is furnished.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Shell curved, with a single somewhat straight abbreviated lobe at the base: reddish yellow, clouded, spotted and dotted with fuscous.

MALLEUS MACULATUS: testa arcuata, lobo basis unico sub-recta abbreviato
flavo-rufescente fusco nebulosa maculata punctisque.

* * * * *

The singular object now before us, a shell no less remarkable for the peculiarity of its form than rarity of occurrence, is one of the most choice productions of the seas surrounding the Friendly Isles. The discovery of this shell, like that of many others, resulted from the assiduities of that eminent Naturalist and promoter of scientific knowledge, the late Sir Joseph Banks, and of Dr. Solander, who accompanied him in that memorable voyage of Captain Cook to the Southern Hemisphere, in which the Friendly Isles were discovered. The fine example of this shell, in particular, from which the drawing in our plate is taken, it may be also added, was one of those which were brought to this country by Captain Cook upon the return of the expedition, and which being shortly after presented to Sir Ashton Lever, remained in the Museum of that distinguished amateur from that period to the time of its dissolution in the year 1806.

When we consider the very remote situation of those islands, so distant from the usual track of all navigators, we cannot be surprised, admitting the species to be local in those seas, to find it has remained a very rare shell from the period of its discovery to the present time. In the course of many years only a few specimens have occurred to our observation, and while it has remained scarce with us, it appears to have been still more uncommon in the continental cabinets: very few of which, if we are informed correctly, were lately in possession of it.

The first difficulty that arises in the mind of the naturalist upon the inspection of this shell results from the ambiguity of its generical peculiarities: we pause to consider where it should be placed. Linnæus, to whom, as it will be observed, the present shell was totally unknown, arranged the Hammer Shell, its nearest approximation, among the Ostreæ. The Hammer Shell, or as it is more usually denominated the Hammer Oyster Shell, had been discovered before the time of Linnæus; it had appeared in the work of Rumpfius, Seba, Gualtieri and Argenville, and the shell had been examined and described by him in the Museum of Ulrica, Queen of Sweden, under the name of Ostrea Malleus. That the hinge accords in some degree with that of the Ostreæ generally must be admitted, at the same time that it possesses other characters less easily reconciled to that genus, unless we embrace the Linnæan genus in all its latitude, and to this the conchologist of the present day cannot accede, at least without some little difficulties.

The conformation of this shell is very striking, and yet we perceive that its essential characteristics are less definitive than could be wished; there are several approximations in the general figure to be found among shells which nevertheless possess characters generically distinct. For many years this shell was known in this country under the name of “_Margaritifera maculata_,” and the trivial English appellation of the “_Spotted Hound’s Tongue_:” it appeared under those names in the Conchological Museum of M. de Calonne, while it remained in England, and in the catalogue of that museum, which is still extant, it will be found under those names. The epithet of Hound’s Tongue is not inaptly applied to this shell, in allusion to the elongated form. The term Margaritifera does not refer to the form, but to the pearly gloss that appears upon the surface of the dark blue space lying within the shell, immediately below the hinge, and extending from thence about one fourth part of its whole length. This is the region in which the animal is attached by its ligament to the valves of the shell; besides which, a gloss of pearly hue is observed to pervade the whole of the inner surface, only that it is most conspicuous in the darker disk of the shell. As a secondary character this pearliness is very remarkable in the shell before us, at the same time that as a generical denomination the term Margaritifera assigned to it from this circumstance alone is liable to objection; because, the same pearliness prevails in many shells which have no relation whatever with the present, either in the form or structure of the hinge, and it is to these we must resort for its true essential character.

Lamarck constitutes many genera of the shells included in the Ostrea genus of Linnæus. His Malléacées comprehend five genera, Crenatula, Perna, Malleus, Avicula, and Meleagrina, all which are allied more or less remotely to the shell before us. To that particular family which is known among collectors by the designation of Hammer Oysters, he gives the name of Malleus, in the French Marteau, both alike implying the hammer like form of the species Malleus, which Lamarck assumes as the type of this genus. But even there after all the renovation that has been attempted, the result is not satisfactory, because this figure is by no means constant, even in the few species included by its author in that genus; it contains but six species, and these are entirely at variance with each other. Thus for example, in Malleus Vulgaris, the common Hammer Shell, we have a species with three lobes, a lateral one of considerable size being advanced on each side the beaks: and another shell of the same species with only short lateral lobes instead of large ones. Admitting the hammer form to be still preserved in these, in the next species, Malleus Normalis, instead of two lobes, the hammer head, if it may be so expressed, has but a single lobe: in Malleus Anatinus there is only one lobe, and that very small; and in Malleus Vulsellatus, although characterised as “_lobo oblique porrecto_,” the appearance of the shell implies rather the total absence of any lobe, for the lobe, if so it may be termed, is so indefinite, that it cannot be referred without violence to the genus Marteau, while we consider its hammer like form as a leading character of the genus. With exception to this inconstant character which may be qualified with the expression “deformed and generally hammer shaped,” we have no objection to the Malleus genus, because the byssus of the animal by means of which it can affix itself to other bodies, and the peculiar sinus or sulcation of the hinge through which the byssus passes from the animal to those extraneous bodies, are sufficient to remove it from the Ostrea genus, in which case if we still adhere to the Linnæan method we can place it only among his Mytili or Pinnæ, and it has certainly less affinity with either of those than with Ostrea. Perhaps the name of Perna under which this shell has been mentioned a few years ago might have been as well preserved, but that name Lamarck assigns to an extensive genus of which Ostrea Isognomum is the type, and it is therefore better to retain the name Malleus than to alter it to another which could not fail at this time to create confusion. The same consequence would as unquestionably result were we to sub-divide the Malléacées into different genera according to the configuration of the shell or number of its lateral lobes.

The definition of Malleus in the _Règne Animal_ of Cuvier appears to intimate the same objection; it does not consider the hammer like form of the shell as any criterion, it is only stated that the Marteaux are inequivalve and irregular, that they have a simple hollow for the ligament as in the oysters, but that they are distinguished by a slope at the side of the ligament for the passage of the byssus.

It is assuredly true that the presence of a byssus in this tribe of shells displaces them from any immediate analogy with the Ostrea, where as Cuvier remarks “Linnæus left them.” But, if however, we attentively examine the hinge of the common oyster, the two valves, and the oyster as it lies within the valves, we shall perceive with this exception a pretty near approximation. The great objection is, that the animal of the tribe of shells now before us protrudes a byssus from its body through a lateral opening on one side or slope of the ligament of the hinge; if we closely inspect the valves of the oyster, we also find a slight depression or hollow upon each side of the cartilage of the hinge; these are small, and usually somewhat lamellar. The oyster, moreover, as it lies in the shell, seems capable of expanding or spreading that part of the body which lies under the hinge laterally upon and into these depressions, a circumstance very easily observed in the half famished oyster, because these lateral expansions of the animal are then more visibly elongated along the passage of these lateral grooves of the hinge, and give the pointed end of the animal a somewhat cornuted appearance. Under the same circumstance these processes adhere as they lie in the hollow of these grooves, and thus suggests the idea of the animal having exerted itself by such extension to obtain refreshment through these lateral hollows. Those hollows are also so far pervious as to admit the ingress of moisture while the shells are closed, in the same manner as it is possible the Malleus genus may receive moisture under the same circumstance through the sinus, whence the byssus is protruded. These peculiarities considered, may perhaps afford some further justification of Linnæus in placing the hammer shells with the Ostreæ. It has been indeed advanced that Linnæus was not aware of these hammer shells being furnished with a byssus, or that he would have referred them to the Mytili, but this observation cannot be correct, because in the figure given of these shells by Seba, to which Linnæus refers, the byssus, which is very conspicuous, is represented pendent or hanging to a considerable length out of the shell.

From an attentive examination of the different Conchological authors, it does not appear to us that the shell before us has hitherto been figured, and we have reason also to believe that it has never been described. These circumstances are the more probable since, as we have before observed, the shell is at this time very little known among the Continental Cabinets. The nearest approach, so far as we can judge from the description, unassisted by any figure, is the Marteau Normal (Malleus Normalis) of Lamarck, a species defined by him as _testa biloba_; _lobo basis unico anticali ad normam_, our shell is certainly bilobate, for it has only one lateral lobe at the beak, and that moreover advances from the beak, pretty nearly, though not exactly, in a right line; but its general description does not sufficiently accord with our shell to authorise as a conclusion that they are the same. Lamarck informs us that there are two varieties of his Malleus Normalis, one of which is a native of the ocean of the Great Indies, the other of the seas of New Holland. The first, or Indian kind, he describes as being on the inside as well as outside of a black colour, with a longish lobe at the base of the shell.[22] The New Holland kind is described of a whitish colour, with the lobe at the base abbreviated.[23]

The two last-mentioned shells which Lamarck concludes to be varieties of the same species, may perhaps prove hereafter to be species distinct from each other, as Lamarck has himself shewn to be the case with respect to the common black and the white hammer shells. The black supposed variety of Malleus Normalis we apprehend to be distinct from the shell before us, but it is possible that the New Holland shell which he describes as being whitish, with the lobe at the base abbreviated, may be a worn or much depauperated specimen of our present shell; it certainly does not accord with our shell in any tolerable state of preservation.

Lamarck says nothing of any ruddiness or testaceous hues in his New Holland variety of _Normalis_, and admitting these colours to indicate that the shell had been found with its animal in a living state, we can scarcely conceive the dark fuscous spotting which is so conspicuous in the species could by any ordinary accident be so entirely obliterated as appears to be the case in Lamarck’s specimen, if his New Holland variety of Malleus Normalis be really of this species; and it may be further added that if our present shell was actually intended by his Malleus Normalis, the defects of his shell has necessarily influenced his specific character and rendered it imperfect.

We have not adverted to Malleus Anatinus of Chemnitz, because the figure of that shell is ambiguous. There is a remote resemblance in the lateral appendages of the beaks, but in other particulars the resemblance is less obvious, the body is sometimes curved as in the shell before us and sometimes straight, but the edges of the valves are parallel, and the shell itself pellucid: the figure in Chemnitz is less than half the size of our shell. This inhabits the seas of Timor and the Nicobar Islands.

It should be observed in conclusion that there is a specimen of our species among the Hammer Shells in the British Museum, the _habitat_ of which is indicated by the word “Amboina:” it is much smaller than our shell. Besides this we have lately seen another example from New Holland, of a growth still larger than the shell we have delineated.

We have entered thus minutely into the analogies of this shell from an apprehension we might otherwise in this instance submit as a new species an object that had been previously described. The result of our enquiry will tend to shew that if the species has not remained entirely unnoticed, it has never been described with much precision.

-----

Footnote 22:

Testa extus intusque nigra: lobo basis longiusculo. _Animaux sans
vertèbres. T. 6. p. 145._

Footnote 23:

Var. testâ albidâ; lobo basis abbreviato. _Ibid._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_29_

_London. Published by E. Donovan & Mess.^{rs}
Simpkin & Marshall, Jan.^y 1, 1823._
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENTOMOLOGY.

PLATE XXIX.

PAPILIO TROS
TROS’S BUTTERFLY.

LEPIDOPTERA.

GENERIC CHARACTER.

Antennæ thicker towards the tip, and generally terminating in a knob: wings erect when at rest. Fly by day.

* EQUITES TROJANI.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER
AND
SYNONYMS.

Wings indented, tailed, above and beneath black; on the anterior wings an abbreviated white band: posterior ones with sanguineous spots.

PAPILIO TROS: alis dentato caudatis concoloribus nigris: anticis fascia
abbreviata alba, posticis sanguinea maculari. _Fabr. Ent. Syst.
T. 3. p. 1. 10. 30._

_Jon. fig. pict. 1. tab. 23._

* * * * *