Studies in Ampullaria London Agents: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STUDIES IN AMPULLARIA LONDON AGENTS: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT AND CO. LTD. STUDIES IN AMPULLARIA BY E. G. ALDERSON, M.A. Member of the Malacological Society of London, and of the Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. WITH NINETEEN PLATES, DRAWN FROM NATURE BY THE AUTHOR. W. HEFFER & SONS LTD. CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND 1925 The edition is limited to one hundred and fifty copies, of which fifteen copies will be coloured and signed 1 y the author. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN PREFACE It is perhaps advisable to give some explanation as to the title and scope of this work. The title in particular is open to the criticism that I might have begun my studies by finding out the correct name of the genus which forms my subject. By the International rules of nomenclature the Boltenian name Pila takes precedence of Lamarck's Ampullaria. This being the case, I have only an excuse to offer for my disregard of strict priority. It is simply that Bolten's name has not come into general use, and probably never will. A precedence of one year, obtained by an obscure and almost inaccessible publication, cannot efface the associations which have gathered round the genus under its familiar title of Ampullaria during the last hundred and twenty years. None of the leading authorities on these shells use Pila, museums seem to ignore it, and, most important of all, from my point of view, private collectors are not familiar with it. Since my book is strictly conchological, and largely intended for the use of collectors, I have thought it best to sacrifice the letter of the systematic law, and discuss my favourite genus under a designation well-known to every lover of shells. The scope of the work is not what was originally intended. I had hoped to accomplish a complete monograph of Ampullaria, with original figures of all the established species and their varieties. No one who has worked upon these shells will deny that some such critical revision is long overdue. The two monographs which may be regarded as the classics of Ampullaria were both written more than sixty years ago, and the species since added have generally been described in publications of limited circulation, many of which are now quite out of print, and only occasionally to be found even in large public libraries. But it soon became evident that the necessary material could not be got together. The Great War put a stop to collecting, and shells became very difficult to get, either by purchase or exchange. I did all I could in either direction, and should like to acknowledge the trouble taken by Mr. Hugh Fulton, of the firm of Messrs. Sowerby and Fulton, that he might meet my demands for Ampullariae, and in particular to thank Mr. W. H. Weeks, of Brooklyn, New York, who most kindly sent me many valuable gifts of these shells. Without his aid, and that of the late Mr. F. J. Ede, of Silchar, I could scarcely have got along, having resolved to make use only of shells in my own possession for the figures and descriptions. This decision, of course, restricted my work to studies of such species as I was able to procure, and a selection had to be made of the most interesting forms, since the series could not be completed. It seemed to be the only thing to do, for the more one studies this genus, the more evident does it become that casual acquaintances therein are of no profit. Borrowed specimens, the loan of which was kindly offered me at times, cannot help; they will not be at hand when they are wanted. To understand the Ampullariae, one must handle them almost daily, and have the whole of one's material ready for comparison and discrimination. On the same principle I undertook the task of drawing all the figures unaided, and no one else has put a single touch to the V vi PREFACE designs. These might have been much more artistic had they been done by a regular draughtsman, but I thought it better that they should show the points which only a conchologist, or perhaps I should rather say, an Ampullariologist, could be expected to see. In several cases I have figured under one name a whole series of shells, the specific identity of which may well be called in question. The utmost latitude has certainly been allowed for variation, but no group of figures has been assigned to the same label without most deliberate selection and comparison of the subjects, and it will probably be conceded that in this genus such latitude is at least permissible. At the worst it is a change from the methods which in the past have overloaded Ampullaria with superfluous species. No opercula have been figured. There is no particular object in giving representations of these, since what is perhaps their only significant character-their composition-cannot be positively expressed in a drawing. All the shells are figured strictly of the natural size, and therefore no measurements are given in the descriptions. As a matter of fact, Ampullariae are hardly ever in perfect condition, and the points most vital to accurate measurement, the apex and the outer lip, are just those where damage most frequently occurs. When these are eroded or chipped, it is obvious that the height and breadth it is possible to give can only very roughly represent the original proportions. In this genus a good many forms which were given specific rank by Philippi, Reeve, etc., are now recognised as mere varieties. To avoid confusion, I have allowed their familiar names to remain upon the plates, and have explained their real standing and affinities in-the accompanying letterpress. There also a good deal of space has been devoted to the synonymy, and to attempts to clear up the confusion at present existing in the same. Full references to the standard Ampullaria literature have been given. These have cost me a great deal of trouble in the hunting down of many scarce books and periodicals, and in making abstracts and translations. I can only hope that the results of my labours may be of use to those who, like myself, are enthusiasts for this beautiful but perplexing genus. November 19th, 1924. CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY THE genus Ampullaria appears to have attracted the notice of travellers and collectors in the Jacobean period; at any rate Martin Lister, in his great work on shells (1685) gave figures of A. urceus, A. guyanensis and .A. glauca. These are perhaps the earliest Ampullaria figures extant. Rumphius (1705), Seba in his "Thesaurus" (1734-1765), and Gualtier (1742) all gave rough figures of shells belonging, apparently, to this genus. Those of Rumphius and Seba are reversed, owing to the carelessness of the engraver, the effect of which upon these beautifully symmetrical forms is quite startling. We may remark that the sinistral shell thus artificially produced by these ancient authors is perhaps rarer in this genus than in any other. Sowerby states that the only instance he ever heard of is that recorded by Nevill (Hand List Moll. pt. 2, p. 2) in the case of A. globosa. He has, however, overlooked the fact that on the next page a similar aberration is ascribed to A. carinata. Linné noticed one or two of these shells, which he seems to have regarded as terrestrial, and consequently he relegated them to the genus Helix. D'Argenville (1757), Martini and Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. 1769-1795), Knorr (1771), Müller (Hist. Verm. 1773), Schröter (Flussconchylien 1779), all figured Ampullariae under various generic names, mostly ascribing them to Helix, and Müller putting down A. urceus to Nerita. Humphrey (Mus. Calonn. 1797) noticed five species under the generic name Pomus, apparently the first attempt to give a special designation to these shells. In the next year Bolten formed for them the genus Pila (Mus. Boltenianum, 1798). Messrs. Fischer and Crosse point out that both these names are here " catalogue " productions, with no claim to priority, because they are unaccompanied by diagnoses. It is also remarked that Pomus, besides being meaningless, is objectionable, as having been applied by the brothers Adams to Western species only, whereas Humphrey's original five species included at least a couple of Eastern forms; while Pila was employed by Klein (1753) for a section of Nerita and is, therefore, according to the view of Fischer and Crosse, untenable. This opinion, at least as far as Bolten is concerned, is controverted in the best and most complete account of the nomenclature that has yet appeared-a paper by W. H. Dall in Vol. XI. of the " Journal of Conchology." 'In this we read (p. 51) of the 'Museum Boltenianum" that "though no diagnoses were given, full citations of name, volume, page and figure of previous authors were provided, and there seems to be no way in which we can consistently refuse to adopt the Boltenian name if we accept any names given without a diagnosis, as has now become a common practice." Bolten's names being now recognised by the International rules of nomenclature, the correct name for our genus is Pila, which, as Dall points out, includes both Eastern and Western species. These, according to the difference in the operculum, are generally kept apart as separate sections, and Bolten's name is often used for the Eastern species only. For reasons stated in the Preface, I have preferred to use the more familiar vii viii CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Ampullaria of Lamarck for the whole genus. With him its literary interest really begins.