The Project Gutenberg eBook ofZoological Illustrations, Volume 3

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofZoological Illustrations, Volume 3This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Zoological Illustrations, Volume 3Author: William SwainsonRelease date: April 18, 2012 [eBook #39477]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Keith Edkins and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ZOOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS, VOLUME 3 ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Zoological Illustrations, Volume 3Author: William SwainsonRelease date: April 18, 2012 [eBook #39477]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Keith Edkins and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)

Title: Zoological Illustrations, Volume 3

Author: William Swainson

Release date: April 18, 2012 [eBook #39477]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Keith Edkins and the OnlineDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (Thisfile was produced from images generously made availableby The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ZOOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS, VOLUME 3 ***

In concluding the last volume of these Illustrations, I may be allowed to express the satisfaction I feel, at the favourable manner in which the work has been received, both in this country and on the continent.

Several objections have been urged, even by sensible writers, against miscellaneous works on Zoology. First, that they range over the whole animal kingdom, without completing the history of any one tribe. Secondly, that their authors, while professing to illustrate only what is new or little known, intrude a large proportion of subjects to be found in all the common natural histories. And thirdly, that this rapid mode of publishing new discoveries, is an infringement on the right, and is detrimental to the labours, of those naturalists who direct their attention to one particular branch. These objections, however, are not unanswerable; for, in the first place, these miscellanies should more properly be considered as graphic illustrations, or collections of figures, wherein the efforts of the artist, aided by scientific knowledge, are called forth, to complete, by his pencil, the more minute and detailed descriptions which should proceed from the pen of the monographer. The most perfect works in the science are undoubtedly those which unite the labours of both; but, in proportion as this perfection is attained, the general utility of such works is diminished. They become so enormously expensive, that they are only to be seen in universities and princely libraries; for the most part inaccessible to the naturalist, and nearly unknown to the public at large. The works of Le Vaillant, Desmarest, Vieillot, Ferussac, and several others, published in France and Germany, are of this description; and while in one sense they have considerably benefitted the science, they have in another proved very detrimental to its general diffusion. No sensible naturalist will risk his fame, by giving his observations to the world, without knowing what has been done by those who have preceded him;—until, in fact, he has proper materials to work upon. He knows that these sumptuous authors should be consulted; he has not the means of so doing; and he relinquishes his purpose in despair. Such has been the result in two or three instances which I could mention: and the power of materially extending the bounds of science is thus confined to those favoured few, who are so fortunate as to possess, or to have the power of consulting, those splendid publications.

The second objection is well grounded; but in whatever degree it may apply elsewhere, I trust the following pages will evince my anxiety to render the work replete with subjects hitherto unknown or unrecorded; and my own collections, in most cases, have given me ample means for examining and comparing both the genera and species of nearly all the subjects I have attempted to illustrate.

In several instances my opinions will be found to differ from those of many celebrated naturalists of the day; but I have endeavoured to put the reader in possession of the reasons which have led to the conclusions I have adopted. This is but justice towards those who have preceded me, and to the great body of naturalists, by whom such questions will ultimately be decided. The age is past wherein theipse dixitof a great name was enough to check all inquiries after truth. Assertions must now be proved before they are admitted: and those writers who lay before the public tribunal of science their facts, their arguments, and their deductions, can alone hope to have their opinions generally adopted.

The third and last objection is as new as it is singular; and has been urged against Miscellanies in general by an anonymous French writer.[1]However an author may feel annoyance or disappointment, that another should be the first to publish discoveries, whichhefancies belong exclusively to himself, he surely has no title to complain. The field of Nature is open to the inquiries of all. In her domain there are not yet established anyscientific preserves.[2]If occupation or indolence does not permitonelabourer to make known his discoveries, isanother(who perhaps unconsciously has been working on the same ground) to hide the knowledgehehas gained? This is surely a principle at once illiberal and unjust. At this time, there is not perhaps a single department of Zoology which is not employing the attention of more than one writer. It is to the honour, and to the lasting benefit of science, that it should be so: and although a great part of the new objects collected during my travels in Europe and Brazil have recently been made public by MM. Temminck and Godart, I feel rejoiced that this has been done by such distinguished men.

I have been induced to enter (perhaps too fully) into a general defence of Zoological miscellanies, from the opinion I entertain of their great utility. First, in diffusing a general knowledge, and exciting a taste for such pursuits among the great mass of readers; and secondly, as being a prompt and interesting channel of communicating new discoveries to the scientific world. Their periodical appearances and comparative cheapness renders them of easy access to the student; and, if well conducted, they unite all that is essential from the pen and the pencil.

Several foreign journals have noticed the appearance of these Illustrations, and generally in such terms as to stamp a value on their contents. One of these, however,[3]contains several misrepresentations, which have doubtless escaped the notice of the editor; and which, therefore, it may be as well to explain in this place. The writer in this journal, while noticing my Illustrations, seems to have mixed up with it criticisms intended for another periodical miscellany,[4]to which this has, perhaps, given birth, and which professes to be on a similar plan. He states that these Illustrations are to be completed in sixty numbers, making five volumes. No such declaration, to my knowledge, has ever been made, although such is the averred plan of the Naturalist's Repository. The reviewer goes on to state: "Il suit pour l'Entomologie et la Conchologie la classification surannée de Linnæus." This is not a very respectful mode of speaking of the labours of the greatest naturalist whom his age produced; but the proposition is a total mistake; the charge is refuted by almost every page of my work; and, what is rather extraordinary, by the very quotations of the reviewer. In reply to the regret expressed, "que l'auteur n'indique pas toujours les ouvrages les plus récens," I should have been thankful had he subjoined what works these were; as I do not find, in the monthly lists of theBulletin, any one which I have not consulted or referred to, if connected with the objects here described.[5]M. de Ferussac's work has been regularly cited, but hisProdromusI have never been able to procure, either in England or Paris.

And here I cannot refrain from adverting to the great number of Zoological publications which have appeared in this country during the last three years; a number far exceeding in proportion that of any period in the annals of the science. Dr. Horsfield has commenced a beautiful work on the Animals of Java; and Mr. Sowerby is prosecuting his Genera of Shells with much zeal, and with increased ability. Both these appear periodically. They are conducted on the modern principles of science, and do credit to their authors. The Naturalist's Repository, before alluded to, likewise appears monthly, but is carried on according to the Linnæan system, pure and unadulterated. All these, however, unite in showing how rapidly the taste for such works has increased. Added to these, a new quarterly Journal, exclusively devoted to Zoology, has been announced, and, if conducted on liberal principles, its utility will be very great.

But nothing, perhaps, has more fully evinced the state of public feeling on this point among men of enlightened minds, than the discussions which have arisen on the present state of the British Museum. It is a subject on which I might be tempted to say much, did I not feel, that among those who do not know me, I might be suspected of interested or unworthy motives. But from the retirement of a country life, I may now be allowed perhaps to say a few words. It is indeed most true, that, in the Zoological department, this institution is a full century behind the rest of Europe; I might almost add, of America. But the fault is deep-rooted; and does not spring from the person (whoever he may be) to whom this overwhelming charge is given. It is ridiculous to suppose that the exertions of any one person (however great his talents, his zeal, and his assiduity,) are sufficient to discharge the duties of so complicated an office. Such a supposition implies the expectation of a moral impossibility; and so long as such a Herculean task is allotted him, so long will the Museum continue, with little alteration, in its present state. Where we haveoneZoologist, the museums of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna have many; each is charged with the care of one particular branch; and, by their united efforts, the whole is displayed to the examination of the scientific, and to the view of the public. Each professor has thus leisure to prosecute the most important objects of his duty;i. e.to examine, compare, and describe, to detect analogies, to investigate affinities, and to give to the world the fruits of his studies. To France more particularly this honour is due. And what has been the result? Why, that Paris has become the Zoological university of Europe; and that the principles which have emanated from it, are now considered the only true ones by which Nature is to be studied.

It is not my object to attach reproach to any body of men collectively, or to any one individually; but truth is not to be concealed. Every writer who has the advancement of his favourite study at heart, is bound (however feebly) to advocate its cause. The truth of the preceding remarks cannot be questioned; and it remains with those in power, to consider well, whether such a state of things is consistent with the honour and reputation of the country; with the justice due to those great men who founded the institution; and to the expectations of the public, by whom it is supported.

Warwick, October, 1823.

Pl.120

Plate 120.

A. testâ globosâ, corrugatâ, olivaceâ; spiræ prominentis, acutæ, anfractibus ventricosis; aperturæ margine crasso, fulvo, sulcato; umbilico parvo, juxta labii interioris mediam posito; operculo testaceo.Shell globose, wrinkled, olive; spire prominent, acute, the whorls ventricose; margin of the aperture thick, fulvous, grooved; umbilicus small, linear, near the middle of the inner lip; operculum shelly.Helix Ampullacea.Linn. Gmelin,p.3626.Ampullaria rugosa.Sowerby, Genera of Shells,fas.4.fig.1. 2.

Shell globose, wrinkled, olive; spire prominent, acute, the whorls ventricose; margin of the aperture thick, fulvous, grooved; umbilicus small, linear, near the middle of the inner lip; operculum shelly.

Helix Ampullacea.Linn. Gmelin,p.3626.

Ampullaria rugosa.Sowerby, Genera of Shells,fas.4.fig.1. 2.

The annexed figures of this hitherto undefined species will clearly show its distinction fromAmp. globosa, (pl. 119); and the specific characters now framed for these two shells, will, I think, sufficiently distinguish them from each other.

In comparison withA. globosa, this (even in the young state) is a wrinkled, not a smooth shell, having the umbilicus placed near the middle, not towards the base, of the inner lip: the spiral whorls are elevated and ventricose, not depressed, and slightly convex; and the basal volution, instead of being very wide on the upper part, (near the suture,) is widest only in the middle. In young shells, the wrinkles and the marginated aperture are less defined. When divested of its epidermis, the colour is blueish white, with a few narrow bands of obscure purple. A specimen in my own collection has the epidermis so thin, that the colours beneath it are very conspicuous. The mouth inside is dark chesnut, with blackish bands; the margin being pale yellow and slightly reflected. The umbilicus, both in this and inA. globosa, is small and contracted, while in the realA. rugosa Lam.(Helix urceus Lin.) it is very large, round, and deep. This latter shell, also, differs from both of the former, by having a thin, and not a margined aperture.

Mr. Sowerby appears the only writer who has figured this shell, which he has mistaken for theA. rugosaof Lamarck. I am informed by Mr. Humphreys it is a native of India.

Pl.121

Plate 121.

C. supra nitidè purpureo-ærata, subtus olivaceo-crocea; scapulis, uropygio, strigâque laterali a rostro ad pectus descendente nitidè violaceis; jugulo castaneo; caudâ nigra.Above glossy metallic purple; beneath olive yellow; scapulars, rump, and lateral stripe from the bill to the breast, shining violet; throat chesnut; tail black.Nectarinia Javanica.Horsfieldin Linn. Tran.vol.13. i.p.167.

C. supra nitidè purpureo-ærata, subtus olivaceo-crocea; scapulis, uropygio, strigâque laterali a rostro ad pectus descendente nitidè violaceis; jugulo castaneo; caudâ nigra.

Above glossy metallic purple; beneath olive yellow; scapulars, rump, and lateral stripe from the bill to the breast, shining violet; throat chesnut; tail black.

Nectarinia Javanica.Horsfieldin Linn. Tran.vol.13. i.p.167.

Under the full conviction that nature has defined, in the most complete manner, the geographic limits of the various tribes of birds subsisting on vegetable juices, I am particularly anxious to rectify any mistakes that may shake this hypothesis, in which I find myself supported, in the fullest manner, by the opinion of Professor Temminck, in the last edition of hisManuel.

Dr.Horsfield, in his account of the birds of Java, describes two species under the names ofNectarinia JavanicaandPectoralis. It happens, however, that specimens of both these birds are in my own cabinet, and have enabled me to ascertain that they are both decided species ofCinnyris, perfectly agreeing with the characters laid down by Cuvier, Temminck, and myself, for this group. It is difficult to say how this oversight has occurred, because Dr. H., just before, introduces the genusCinnyris, and describes under it two new species. In short, no doubt remains in my own mind, thatCinnyrisis a genus as strictly confined to the tropical latitudes of theold, asNectariniais to thenewworld.

The figure is the size of life; the outline of the bill will illustrate the generic characters, of which one of the most important is the nostrils. Nothing can exceed the richness and variety of tints with which this splendid little creature is ornamented; particularly on the head, which is glossed alternately with lilac, sea-green, and violet, and appears as if covered with some metallic substance; the blue on the wings, back, and edges of the tail is very deep, shining, and glossed with purple; all the wing-feathers are edged with olive, and some of the lesser quills with chesnut.

Pl.122

Plate 122.

A. testâ elongatâ, fasciis numerosis nigris, viridibus et flavis ornatâ; anfractûs basalis latitudine altitudinem superante; aperturâ rotundatâ; labio exteriore integro; basi profundè emarginatâ.

Var.2.testâ fasciis fuscis ornatâ; labio interiore albo.Var.3.testâ fasciis rufis ornatâ; labio interiore roseo.

Var.2.testâ fasciis fuscis ornatâ; labio interiore albo.

Var.3.testâ fasciis rufis ornatâ; labio interiore roseo.

Shell elongated, with crowded bands of black, green, and yellow; basal volution broader than high; aperture rounded; outer lip entire; base deeply notched.Bulla virginea.Gm.3429.Chemnitz, 9.t.117.f.1000, 1.Dill.491.Bulimus virgineus.Brug.p.363.—Lister, 15. 10.Seba,t.40.f.38.Ferrusac,pl.120.f.3, 4, 5.

Shell elongated, with crowded bands of black, green, and yellow; basal volution broader than high; aperture rounded; outer lip entire; base deeply notched.

Bulla virginea.Gm.3429.Chemnitz, 9.t.117.f.1000, 1.Dill.491.

Bulimus virgineus.Brug.p.363.—Lister, 15. 10.Seba,t.40.f.38.Ferrusac,pl.120.f.3, 4, 5.

Var. 2. Shell banded with brown; inner lip white.Ferrusac,t.120.f.2.Var. 3. Shell banded with rufous; inner lip rosy.Chemnitz, 10. 173.f.1682, 1683, (reversed.)

Var. 2. Shell banded with brown; inner lip white.Ferrusac,t.120.f.2.

Var. 3. Shell banded with rufous; inner lip rosy.Chemnitz, 10. 173.f.1682, 1683, (reversed.)

The shell generally known as theAch. virginea(Bulla virginea Lin.) is so common, that few collectors do not possess it. The varieties, however, of this species are rare, and differ so remarkably in their colouring, as to require illustration. Several kindred species of this family I have already described; and on the same principle of establishing specific distinctions from formation instead of colour, I shall now endeavour to point out those characters which are common, more or less, to all the varieties of this species, and which distinguish it from its allies.A. virgineamay be known by the comparative shortness of the basal whorl, which in general is broader than high; the margin of the outer lip is entire, and sloping in an oblique direction; the aperture is wide, and nearly round; the lower part of the columella takes a concave direction, and between its base and that of the outer lip is a very deep notch. The basal whorl is so broad that the shell, if placed on a table with its mouth downwards, will remain erect.

Both these and the two next varieties are in Mr. Dubois' cabinet. Their locality is unknown; but my young friend, Mr. Frederick Parkes, has recently sent me shells of the common variety, found by himself near Kingston, Jamaica.

Pl.123

Plate 123.

A. virginea, var.3.testâ ampliore, albescente, fasciis rufis nigrisque ornatâ; aperturâ purpureâ; labio interiore albo.

Var.4.testâ ampliore, albâ, fasciis 3 angustis, fuscis ornatâ; aperturâ labioque interiore albis; anfractu basali medio subcarinato.

A. virginea, var. 3. Shell larger, whitish, with rufous and black bands, aperture purple; inner lip white.Middle figures.

Var. 4. Shell larger, white, with three narrow brown bands; aperture and inner lip white; basal whorl in the middle slightly carinated.Upper and lower figures.

The two varieties ofA. virgineaon this plate, are still more removed from the type of the species than those last figured; they are both much larger in size, and var. 4 presents a slight difference of formation, in having the basal volution somewhat carinated round the middle; but as in every other essential character it agrees with the rest, I have refrained from separating it as a distinct species.

The four varieties I have now illustrated ofAch. virginea, tend to establish, in a very complete manner, the correctness of the principles on which I have framed the specific characters of this genus; here are four shells, with a total difference in the colouring of each, yet all agreeing in the same formation. It should be observed likewise, thatA. pallida, figured at pl. 41 of this work, andA. virginea, var. 4, are nearly the same in colour, while in formation they are completely at variance. I do not think it has been hitherto remarked, that the elegant green lines which ornament the common variety, are onlyexternal; they resemble, in this respect, the epidermis of other shells, for they may be taken off by a knife without any injury to the enamel. M. Ferrusac has figured several other varieties in his beautiful work on Land Shells.

Pl.124

Plate 124.

A. mas. Alis anticis falcato-acuminatis, fuscis, fasciâ mediâ margineque postico flavo; posticis infra flavescentibus colore griseo variis, basi maculis 4 fulvis.Fem. Alis infra albentibus colore griseo variis; anticis integris, supra fuscis, fasciâ mediâ margineque postico albentibus; posticarum basi maculis 4 fulvis.Male.Anterior wings angulated, brown, with a central band and hind margin yellow; posterior beneath yellowish marbled with grey, base with 4 fulvous spots.Female.Anterior wings entire, above brown, with a central band and hind margin whitish; all the wings beneath whitish marbled with grey; base of the posterior with 4 fulvous spots.Pieris Crisia.Godart. En. Méth.p.197.Male.Drury,v.3.pl.37.f.1. 2?

A. mas. Alis anticis falcato-acuminatis, fuscis, fasciâ mediâ margineque postico flavo; posticis infra flavescentibus colore griseo variis, basi maculis 4 fulvis.

Fem. Alis infra albentibus colore griseo variis; anticis integris, supra fuscis, fasciâ mediâ margineque postico albentibus; posticarum basi maculis 4 fulvis.

Male.Anterior wings angulated, brown, with a central band and hind margin yellow; posterior beneath yellowish marbled with grey, base with 4 fulvous spots.

Female.Anterior wings entire, above brown, with a central band and hind margin whitish; all the wings beneath whitish marbled with grey; base of the posterior with 4 fulvous spots.

Pieris Crisia.Godart. En. Méth.p.197.Male.Drury,v.3.pl.37.f.1. 2?

The extraordinary difference existing between the sexes of exotic Lepidoptera, and particularly among the Butterflies, (PapilionidæLin.) is a subject which hitherto has received but little attention; nor am I aware of any entomological writer who has described those characters which absolutely distinguish the sexes: characters which, I am persuaded, will hereafter be found of the first importance in a natural arrangement of these insects. But in the prosecution of this desirable object, the naturalist, as far as regards foreign Lepidoptera, will have to encounter serious obstacles; many individuals must be examined of each species, and some of these dissected. It falls to the lot of few to pursue their inquiries in the native regions of these insects. Collections in this country are very few, and some of these are not always open to the scientific labourer; neither can specimens be sacrificed for dissection, where there are not more than two or three individuals of a species.

This is in general a very rare insect; observed for the first time by Dr. Langsdorff and myself early in June (the tropical autumn), in a wood adjoining the Organ Mountains at Rio de Janeiro. From its local abundance, we were able to ascertain the sexes. The two upper figures are of thefemale, and the lower of themaleinsect.

Pl.125

Plate 125.

P. (Gr. Ecaud.) Alis nigris, fasciâ communi maculisque viridibus; posticis dentatis breviter caudatis; his subtùs fasciâ subargenteâ, marginali, nervis divisâ.Godart.P. (Gr. Ecaud.) Wings black, with spots and a common band of green; posterior wings dentated, obsoletely tailed, beneath with a silvery marginal band, divided by the nerves.P. Nireus.Fab. Sys. Ent.3.p.36.Godart Ency. Méth.9. 1.p.48.Drury2.pl.4.fig.1. 2.Cramer,p.187. A. B. (mas.)pl.378. F. G. (fem.)

P. (Gr. Ecaud.) Alis nigris, fasciâ communi maculisque viridibus; posticis dentatis breviter caudatis; his subtùs fasciâ subargenteâ, marginali, nervis divisâ.Godart.

P. (Gr. Ecaud.) Wings black, with spots and a common band of green; posterior wings dentated, obsoletely tailed, beneath with a silvery marginal band, divided by the nerves.

P. Nireus.Fab. Sys. Ent.3.p.36.Godart Ency. Méth.9. 1.p.48.Drury2.pl.4.fig.1. 2.Cramer,p.187. A. B. (mas.)pl.378. F. G. (fem.)

I have figured this insect, principally because it will fully illustrate the first section (a.) in the arrangement of this beautiful family proposed at plate 92. The two divisions there adopted, after the manner of Linnæus, (GræcietTrojani) I am fully aware, are purely artificial; but the facility this distribution will give to the student, in searching after a particular species, is so obvious, that it need hardly be pointed out.

I have only had the opportunity of examining the individual from which the figure was taken. It is a male, having the anal valves rather lengthened and obtuse, with a small hook between them, which projects from the last segment of the abdomen. This circumstance proves the error of Cramer, in having mistaken the sexes of this species, both of which he seems to have figured. That which I apprehend is the female (Cramer, pl. 378, fig. F. G.) I have not myself seen. The blue-green on the upper surface of the wings is very resplendent and changeable, and the palpi and thorax beneath are covered with numerous whitish spots.

On the under side of the inferior wings, near their base, is a paler band, rayed with the nerves, and in some lights shining with a pale silvery reflection.

Mr. Smeathman sent this species from Sierra Leone, in Africa, to Mr. Drury. The locality, therefore, of India, given by Linnæus and Fabricius, must be incorrect.

Pl.126

Plate 126.

C. testâ fulvâ seu fuscâ, fasciis 2 interruptis ornatâ; spiræ brevis, levatæ, conicæ, maculatæ anfractibus concavis, subgranosè striatis; basi granosâ, albâ.

Var. testâ flavescente, fasciis obscuris, subalbidis ornatâ; basi rufâ. (Fig. nos.)

Shell fulvous or brown, with 2 interrupted white bands; spire short, elevated, conic, spotted, volutions concave with subgranulated striæ; base granulated, white.Conus vitulinus.Brug.p.648.Lamarck. Ann.15.p.265.Knorr.vol.5.tab.1.fig.4 (optimè).Dillwyn377.Lam. Syst.7.p.467. 55.

Shell fulvous or brown, with 2 interrupted white bands; spire short, elevated, conic, spotted, volutions concave with subgranulated striæ; base granulated, white.

Conus vitulinus.Brug.p.648.Lamarck. Ann.15.p.265.Knorr.vol.5.tab.1.fig.4 (optimè).Dillwyn377.

Lam. Syst.7.p.467. 55.

Var. Shell yellowish, with obscure whitish bands; the base rufous.

I received this very uncommon shell from the Island of Amboyna; and although in size and colour it is widely different from the usual appearance ofC. vitulinus, I have no hesitation in considering it as a remarkable variety only of that species.

C. vitulinusin general is a small shell. The best representation of it I have seen is given by Knorr; an author not in general very accurate in his figures. It varies considerably in colour, and approaches very near toC. vulpinus Lam.from which it principally differs in having an elevated, though short, spire, instead of one nearly flat: the base is granulated, and generally white;C. vulpinusalso has the body whorl carinated and thickest round the upper margin, whereas, inVitulinus, it is gently swelled in the middle.

M. Lamarck is, I think, mistaken in the synonyms of this shell, which is represented in theEncy. Méth.plate 326, fig.2 and 4.. The shell at fig. 8. appears to me as the granulated variety ofC. vulpinus.

Inhabits the Asiatic Ocean.

Pl.127

Plate 127.

C. testâ lævi, posticè gracili ferrugineâ, maculis albis subtrigonis, cingulisque numerosis fuscis, albo punctatis, ornatâ; basi nigrâ; spiræ brevis apice acuto, anfractibus lævibus, planis.Shell smooth, posterior end slender, ferruginous, with angular white spots, and white bands dotted with brown; base black; spire short, tip acute, the whorls smooth and flat.C. Maldivus.Brug.(1789.)p.644.Lam. Ann.v.15.p.264.C. Jaspideus.Humphreys in Mus. Cal.(1797)p.12.No.185.Conus Generalis.Var.B.Dillwyn.539. 11.Lam. Syst.7.p.465. 50.

C. testâ lævi, posticè gracili ferrugineâ, maculis albis subtrigonis, cingulisque numerosis fuscis, albo punctatis, ornatâ; basi nigrâ; spiræ brevis apice acuto, anfractibus lævibus, planis.

Shell smooth, posterior end slender, ferruginous, with angular white spots, and white bands dotted with brown; base black; spire short, tip acute, the whorls smooth and flat.

C. Maldivus.Brug.(1789.)p.644.Lam. Ann.v.15.p.264.

C. Jaspideus.Humphreys in Mus. Cal.(1797)p.12.No.185.

Conus Generalis.Var.B.Dillwyn.539. 11.

Lam. Syst.7.p.465. 50.

Var. 1. Band in the middle narrow;upper figure.Ency. Méth.pl. 325. fig. 6.Var. 2. Band broader;lower figure.Var. 3. Band very broad, with dotted transverse lines;middle figure.

Var. 1. Band in the middle narrow;upper figure.Ency. Méth.pl. 325. fig. 6.

Var. 2. Band broader;lower figure.

Var. 3. Band very broad, with dotted transverse lines;middle figure.

Seba.pl.54.fig.11. 12.Ency. Méth.pl.325.fig.5. 7.

The general similarity existing between the Spanish Admiral, and two other cones, figured in this work, I have before alluded to; it has been placed by the Linnæan writers as a variety ofC. Generalis, from which, however, it invariably differs, in being a much thicker shell, with a shorter spire, and the whorls without any concavity. The colour of the two species varies considerably in different individuals, butC. Maldivusis always destitute of the dark brown longitudinal stripes at the top of the body whorl, peculiar toC. Generalis; the white bands are either broken into somewhat triangular spots, or are banded with minute dots; these triangular white spots are sometimes scattered in other parts of the shell, and the white band in the middle varies much in breadth; of all the varieties I have yet seen, the middle figure is that which makes the nearest approach toC. Generalis.

The very applicable name given to this shell by Mr. Humphreys, in theMuseum Calonnianum, I should have adopted, had not Bruguiere previously affixed to it that ofMaldivus, as being a native of the Maldivian Islands.

Pl.128

Plate 128.

Conus Maldivus. Var. B.testâ castaneâ, fasciâ albescente mediâ angustâ ornatâ; anfractûs basalis basi et margine albis.Var. B.Chesnut, with a narrow whitish band in the middle; base and margin of the body whorl white.

Conus Maldivus. Var. B.testâ castaneâ, fasciâ albescente mediâ angustâ ornatâ; anfractûs basalis basi et margine albis.

Var. B.Chesnut, with a narrow whitish band in the middle; base and margin of the body whorl white.

As a further illustration of the last plate, I have been induced to figure this very rare variety, from a specimen I met with at Mrs. Mawe's. In the disposition of its markings, it approaches near to the shell represented in theEncy. Méth.plate325,f.6, but the white band in the middle is narrower, and quite destitute of the circular dotted lines there expressed.

No shells require a greater accuracy of delineation than the Cones, particularly in expressing the peculiarity in the form and sculpture of their spires. I am well persuaded that a great number of the mistakes committed by authors have originated in the wretched figures contained in Favanne's work, and in the early volumes of Martini. Those of Favanne are generally so loose and inaccurate, (although remarkably well engraved,) that I do not wish, by quoting, to make them any authority; and most of the Cones figured by Martini are equally bad.

Bruguiere and Lamarck have both given the character ofspirâ canaliculatâto this species, which is altogether a mistake. The spiral whorls are allbutperfectly flat, and the suture is quite closed up, although sometimes uneven; originating, as in many other shells, either from the inequalities of growth, or from an accidental sea-break, which the animal may have repaired.

Pl.129

Plate 129.

M. olivaceo-fulvâ, infra albâ; capite auribusque nigris; torque nuchali lunato, albo; superciliorum cute rubrâ.Fulvous olive, beneath white; head and ears black; nape with a white crescent, skin of the eyebrows red.Black-crowned Honeysucker.Lewin's Birds of N. Holland,pl.24.

M. olivaceo-fulvâ, infra albâ; capite auribusque nigris; torque nuchali lunato, albo; superciliorum cute rubrâ.

Fulvous olive, beneath white; head and ears black; nape with a white crescent, skin of the eyebrows red.

Black-crowned Honeysucker.Lewin's Birds of N. Holland,pl.24.

An elegant, though not a richly coloured bird; remarkable for the bright red of the skin above the eyes, and the milk-white collar at the back of the head. It is from New Holland, and, like others of its tribe, derives its nourishment chiefly from the nectar of flowers; as more particularly mentioned in my first observations on this genus at pl. 43.

The figure is of the natural size: excepting the crown and sides of the head (which are deep black), the whole upper plumage is olive yellow: the shoulders, quills, and tail brown; the two latter margined with olive, but the exterior quills with white: the throat, breast, and collar round the nape pure white; skin of the eyebrows red.

The Lunated Creeper of Dr. Shaw (Le Fuscalben of Vieillot, Certh.pl.61.p.122.) is, I apprehend, a distinct species. It is described as beingcinnamon brownabove, with a bright red spot offeathers behindthe eye. In the temperate climate of New Holland, that variation from the usual colouring of particular species, so frequent in tropical birds, is seldom met with; neither can these two birds be sexes of one species, because Lewin, who wrote on the spot, particularly remarks that the female of this is like the male; he further adds, it is found near Paramatta, and the Hawkesbury river, in thick bushy woods.

Lewin's figure is so excellent, that I should not again have represented this bird, had not the plate been prepared previous to the publication of his work. The outline figure of the bill will show more clearly the uncommon length of the nostrils, a character which is peculiar to this genus.

Pl.130, 131

Plate 130.

Plate 131.

T. viridi-aureus, subtus canus; remigum primorum (in maribus) scapis dilatato-incurvatis; rectricium pennis 4 mediis viridibus apice nigro, lateralibus albis basi nigrâ; rostro vix recto.Golden green, beneath grey; greater quills (in the male) with the shafts dilated and incurved. Four middle tail-feathers green tipped with black, lateral feathers white with a black base; bill nearly straight.T. latipennis.Lath. In. Orn.1.p.310.Gen. Zool.8. 1. 318.T. campylopterus.Gm. Sys. Nat.499.n.65.L'O. mouche à larges tuyaux.Vieillot Ois. D'or.p.21.p.59.Broad-shafted H. Bird.Lath. Syn.v.2.p.765.Gen. Zool.8. 318.

T. viridi-aureus, subtus canus; remigum primorum (in maribus) scapis dilatato-incurvatis; rectricium pennis 4 mediis viridibus apice nigro, lateralibus albis basi nigrâ; rostro vix recto.

Golden green, beneath grey; greater quills (in the male) with the shafts dilated and incurved. Four middle tail-feathers green tipped with black, lateral feathers white with a black base; bill nearly straight.

T. latipennis.Lath. In. Orn.1.p.310.Gen. Zool.8. 1. 318.

T. campylopterus.Gm. Sys. Nat.499.n.65.

L'O. mouche à larges tuyaux.Vieillot Ois. D'or.p.21.p.59.

Broad-shafted H. Bird.Lath. Syn.v.2.p.765.Gen. Zool.8. 318.

The opinion I expressed on the unusual formation of the wings in two species of Humming-birds, figured at pl. 83 and 107, appears to receive the fullest confirmation from the birds here represented. One of these (pl. 131) is clearly theT. latipennis, or Broad-shafted Humming-bird of authors; while the other presents not the slightest difference except in the shafts of the quills, which, instead of being thickened and dilated, are of the ordinary size.

Not having myself dissected these birds, I cannot decidedly say they are male and female; but I think no reasonable doubt can remain that such is the fact, and that these singular quill-feathers are characteristic only of the male sex.

Both the birds are represented the size of life, and may be included in one description: the upper plumage obscure blueish green, glossed with a coppery or golden tinge and shaded with brown, the plumage beneath entirely grey; ears and sides of the neck the same, the latter with some spots of greenish. Tail large, even, and broad; the two middle feathers green, tipt (in the male) with blackish; the next pair black, with the base green, and the extreme points whitish; the remainder black, with their ends more or less white. Wings violet brown, the shafts of the three outer quills, in the male, dilated and compressed, but simple in the female. Said to inhabit Cayenne. Although the bill of this species is all but straight, it belongs naturally to the curved-bill division.

Pl.132

Back to Index Next