ava ; ;

iA My i

Aw Ope fall i 0 wy

bet, UT ae mn DAG nea thre ip ae

«, Dae a wie i Der eh

Pe iNKT iN




oe sp i, rr oat oy







The Recent Mollusea of Augustus Addison Gould

Illustrations of the Types Described by Gould With a Bibliography and Catalog of His Species


Museum of Comparative Zoology


Publications of the United States National Museum

The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin.

In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects.

The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.

In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.

This work forms number 239 of the Bulletin series.

Frank A. TaYLor Director, United States National Museum


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 Price $1.50 (Paper Cover)


Introduction . eee Gould: Early ae ; : “Invertebrata of ieRaachusetta? Shells from Liberia and Burma . . The United States =e Expedition Charles Wilkes . ; ait Sailing of the eden Return of the expedition Joseph Pitty Couthouy The collectors and collections Disposition of the shell collection . é Gould selected to do the report on maoliieios Summary of the types. Gould: Middle years : Relations with Louis eee 2 “Terrestrial Mollusca of the United States” Mexican War naturalists : The North Pacific Exploring Expedition. William Stimpson : eid Stimpson’s journal ee Gould selected to do the peor on Gaoiiieis Summary of the types. Gould: Later years... . Republication of Snoaceebenis a eqsenehusents? Death of Gould Disposition of the Gould ene policenione Summary of Gould’s types of Mollusca Collections studied for this work ; The species of Recent Mollusca described = Gonld’. The Brachipoda and Tunicata described by Gould ay ts Vici shia SMS ES PPLE | ee a. oh ose Ue Whe we) b tees, « ages following Literature cited my eee : ss : A list of Gould’s works on Peceat Maiiacen


ww eo Ww WW WDD ee ee BR i tt PBPNONOrF COO CH WHO WDWDOAAantrono

i7l 172 173 176

The Recent Mollusca of Augustus Addison Gould


This study is an attempt to bring together the original references to all the Recent mollusks described by Augustus Addison Gould, to locate as many of the type specimens as possible, and to figure all types previously unfigured, selecting lectotypes when required.

It is not to be inferred that the author regards the fixation of types as a final goal in systematics. Types are only taxonomic building blocks. We are still faced with the problem of taxonomic stability in mollusks, of making ‘‘taxonomy 1864” sufficiently precise to serve the needs of “taxonomy 1964” and, although the old typological concept has been replaced by the population concept, we still have to fix and clarify many of the species. In this regard, we should judge the work of older naturalists such as Gould by the best standards of their own times and not by our own.

It has not been our purpose to bring up to date each of the species covered; this is a task for individual revisers. If we have helped to make this task easier and their conclusions more precise, our purpose will have been served.

It gives me pleasure to thank those people whose willing cooperation has eased the task of accumulating data. Special thanks are due to Drs. Harald A. Rehder and Joseph P. E. Morrison of the United States National Museum for their ever-willing aid in searching for types, for suffering numerous interruptions in their own research, for helping with the mounting and dismounting of specimens for photography, and for performing tiresome but necessary tasks connected with the project.

Dr. Vincente Condé made available for study the P. P. Carpenter collection at the Peter Redpath Museum, McGill University, Mon- treal, Canada, and loaned types for photographing. Drs. J. W. Wells and W. Storrs Cole of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, made available certain types in the W. Newcomb collection. Dr. W. K. Emerson of the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, and Mr. Peter Dance and Mr. H. M. Muir-Wood of the British



Museum (Natural History) did the same for the collections in their charge.

All the photographs were prepared by Frank White, staff photog- rapher for the Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, save those which bear United States National Museum numbers. These were prepared by courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution.

Drs. W. J. Clench, R. D. Turner, and M. E. Champion of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, were kind enough to read the manuscript and offer many helpful suggestions.

Finally, I wish to thank my wife, who helped to prepare the manu- script for press.

Gould: Early Years

Augustus Addison Gould, a Boston physician, was one of the leading figures in the second epoch of American conchology, which, in fact, was termed the ‘‘Gouldian Period” by William H. Dall (1888, p. 97). This period began in 1841 with the publication of Gould’s “Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts,’ and, according to Dall, ‘was characterized by the broader scope of investigation, the interest in geographical distribution, the anatomy of the soft parts, and the more precise definition and exact discrimination of specific forms.”

Augustus was born on April 23, 1805, in New Ipswich, New Hamp- shire, the son of Nathaniel Duren Gould and Sally Andrews Prichard. Married on November 15, 1801, the Goulds had eight children, three of whom died in infancy. Augustus was the second child and first survivor. We learn by way of genealogical background that the elder Gould had been adopted by a maternal uncle at the age of 11 and that his name had been changed then from Nathaniel Gould Duren to Nathaniel Duren Gould. We also find that the forebears on both sides of the family were ‘Old Yankees,” having emigrated to America in the middle of the 17th century.

Nathaniel Gould was a musician, a teacher of singing, and an engraver noted for his penmanship. He tried many occupations— school teaching, farming, politics—and was a town selectman from 1807 until he left New Ipswich in 1815. That year he went to Boston to seek his fortune, leaving the farm in the hands of his family. From 1817 to 1820 Nathaniel was a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature. He taught in the grammar schools during the day and gave music lessons in the evenings. Later in life he was engaged to engross Harvard diplomas.

Young Augustus remained on the farm. At the age of 15, he took complete charge of the work but devoted part of his time to study at the New Ipswich Appleton Academy. In 1821, at the age


of 17, he went to Cambridge and entered Harvard College. He worked hard to support himself and, by frugality and application, he was able to matriculate with respectable grades. Among his classmates young Gould was noted for his industry. It was here that his interest in natural history began to develop. He became familiar with native plants, an interest that he never lost. In later life he caused labels with both Latin and common names to be placed on the trees of the Boston Common, a custom that is followed to this day.

After graduating from college, Gould was employed as a private tutor by the McBlair family of Baltimore County, Maryland. At the same time, he began the study of medicine. Most of his medical studies were carried on in Boston, and during 1829-1830 he was a student at the Massachusetts General Hospital under Drs. James Jackson and Walter Channing. In 1830, at the age of 25, Gould was able to affix a well-earned M.D. to hisname. The young physician soon gave indications of future success but, until his practice was large enough to support him, he was forced to work outside his profession. During this period, he cataloged and classified the 50,000 pamphlets in the Boston Athenaeum. For these four folio volumes of careful and patient industry, he received $50.00!

On February 9, 1830, the Boston Society of Natural History held its first meeting at the home of Dr. Walter Channing. Among the seven identified members present was Dr. Amos Binney, Jr., who was to achieve posthumous fame for his ‘Terrestrial Mollusca of the United States,” edited by Dr. Gould. It is not recorded that young Gould was present at this meeting, but it is known that he was soon active in the new society. It was incorporated on March 18, 1831, and on May 4 he was appointed a curator. At this time the curators were not assigned to special departments.

During March of 1833 the Society moved from its rooms in the Athenaeum Building on Pearl Street to the new building of the Savings Bank on Tremont Street. Dr. Gould gave one of the lecture courses offered that year by the Society, and also he published his first work, a modest volume entitled ‘“Lamarck’s Genera of Shells,” which was translated from French. Before 1833 was over, on Novem- ber 25, Dr. Gould married Harriet Cushing Sheafe. She too was from old colonial stock, being related to the Loring, Cushing, and Quincy families. They had ten children, seven of whom grew to maturity. Mrs. Gould survived the Doctor by many years, dying at the age of 82 on May 14, 1893.

In 1834, Gould produced a paper on the Cicindelidae of Massa- chusetts, a group of insects. From this time on, however, he devoted all of his leisure to the study of mollusks. Throughout this paper


it should be remembered that Gould was first of all a medical man. Medicine was his life’s work and he achieved eminence in the field. The time for his work on mollusks was often stolen from the hours for sleep. He frequently arose at four a.m. and went to the Society to work on the collections before his professional duties demanded attention.

For two years Gould taught botany and zoology at Harvard College. It was in January of 1840 that he described 13 new species of shells from Massachusetts. These were the first of the descriptions which would number almost 1100 by the time of his death.

The first indication of his skill as a draftsman, an ability he shared with his father, emerged in a paper in which he attempted to bring order to the genus Pupa, a group of very small land snails. In this work some 30 species were carefully drawn with the aid of a microscope.

“TNVERTEBRATA OF MASSACHUSETTS.’’—In April of 1837 the General Court of Massachusetts authorized a geological survey of the state which was also to include reports on botany and zoology. Dr. Gould was assigned the Invertebrata, exclusive of insects. His preliminary findings were published in 1840 in a paper entitled “Results of an Examination of the Species of Shells of Massachusetts and Their Geographical Distribution.” This was an epoch-making work since the problem had received very little attention elsewhere and none in the United States. He noted that Cape Cod formed a barrier to some species. Of 203 species, he found 80 that did not pass south of the Cape and 30 that did not go north. Certain species, he noted, appear and disappear suddenly in an area, and he stated that it is necessary to collect over a period of years to be certain of the distribution.

The “Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts,” appearing in 1841, was the first monograph published in the United States that attempted to describe the entire molluscan fauna of a geographical region. It is an octavo volume of almost 400 pages, illustrated by more than 200 figures drawn by the author, who stated (p. xi):

Every species described, indeed almost every species mentioned, has passed under my owneye. The descriptions of species previously known, have been written anew; partly, that they may be more minute in partic- ulars, and partly, with the hope of using language somewhat less technical than is ordinarily employed by scientific men.

About 275 mollusks are described, in addition to some 100 other invertebrates. The volume immediately gave him an international reputation. Even after the lapse of over a hundred years, it is still the book on New England mollusks. He received a very flattering letter (quoted in Wyman, 1905, p. 98) from Louis Agassiz.

Specimens of almost every species were deposited in the collection of the Boston Society of Natural History and in the Cabinet of the


State of Massachusetts. Through the course of time, both of these collections have been deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology and, though they have suffered numerous vicissitudes over the years through renumbering, relabeling, and neglect, it has still been possible to relocate some of the types which the collections contained.

SHELLS FROM LIBERIA AND BURMA.—During the years of 1843- 1850 when Gould was corresponding secretary of the Society, he made numerous notes which are recorded in the Proceedings. Among these notes are descriptions from remote places of material given him by missionaries and travellers. The Rev. Francis Mason of Newton, Massachusetts, sent him many new species from Burma and Drs. Savage and Perkins and Mr. Charles J. Bates sent him new shells from Liberia. It was at about this time, in 1846, that Gould began his major descriptive work, the shells of the United States Exploring Expedition.

The United States Exploring Expedition

During the second quarter of the 19th century a number of ambitious exploring expeditions were carried out in the Pacific Ocean by some of the great European powers. Between 1825 and 1828 the British ship Blossom explored the Pacific under the command of Captain F. W. Beechey, and from 1826 to 1829 France employed the Astrolabe under Dumont d’Urville in the same area.

The South Pacific and Antarctic Seas had been frequented by Ameri- can whalers and trading vessels since the early years of the century, but more information was required about these little known and poorly charted regions. It was not until May 21, 1828, however, that the House of Representatives of the United States adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is expedient that one of our small public vessels be sent to the Pacific Ocean and South Seas, to examine the coasts, islands, harbours, shoals and reefs, in those seas, and to ascertain their true situation and description (Haskell, 1942, p. 2).

President John Quincy Adams, who had recommended a more limited expedition, and his Secretary of the Navy, Samuel L. Southard, proceeded with preparations for the voyage. The Senate failed to ratify the measure and Southard was severely censured, but later, as a senator himself, he was able to support the same projected expedition.

The dogged determination of J. N. Reynolds of Ohio, who in 1834 published the ‘‘Voyage of the United States Frigate Potomac... During the Circumnavigation of the Globe in the Years 1831-34,” finally made the project a reality. Incessantly he urged the govern- ment to send out to the South Seas a surveying expedition—to be


accompanied by a large staff of scientists in order that maximum results could be realized. He spoke before Congress, secured the backing of scientific organizations, and obtained the necessary newspaper publicity.

His efforts were finally rewarded by the passage of a bill on May 14, 1836, authorizing President Andrew Jackson “‘to send out a surveying and exploring expedition to the Pacific Ocean and South Seas.” The act was certainly in the spirit of the times: the French sent the Bonité around the world in 1836-1837, the Venus in 1836-1839, the Astrolabe and Zelée to the Antarctic and the islands of the Pacific in 1837-1840, and the British sent the Sulphur to the South Pacific in 1836-1842. Before the United States Exploring Expedition set sail, all of these expeditions had been completed or were on the high seas.

The Department of the Navy appointed Captain Thomas Catesby Jones to be commander of the voyage. Then followed nearly two years of delay, of cross-purposes, charges, countercharges, and, above all, general inefficiency. At last, Jones resigned in discourage- ment and disgust. In March 1838 the command was given to Charles Wilkes despite the protests of many who claimed that he had intrigued to obtain the post. Perhaps he did, but as events proved, he showed himself to have the ability and energy to do the work required.

CHARLES WILKES.—Born in New York City in 1789, Charles Wilkes became a midshipman in the United States Navy in 1818. By 1836 his experience included cruises to the Mediterranean and the Pacific, surveys of Narragansett Bay and Georges Bank on the southern coast of Massachusetts, and surveys of the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia. For some time, he was head of the Depot of Charts and Instruments, the forerunner of the Hydro- graphic Office and Naval Observatory. Wilkes was described as an impetuous and dominating man with great determination and drive. He was a strict disciplinarian and was often in conflict with both superiors and subordinates, a characteristic which earned him the title of “the stormy petrel.’’ After the voyage, in the years prior to the Civil War, he was engaged in the difficult task of seeing the reports of the expedition through the press.

Wilkes is remembered in American history because, as commander of the San Jacinto during the Civil War, he removed the Confederate commissioners Mason and Slidell from the British steamer Trent, an act which nearly caused Great Britain to enter the War. When he died in 1877, he had achieved the rank of rear admiral.

SAILING OF THE EXPEDITION.—By the time Wilkes took command, the expedition was in great disorder and disrepute. He quickly put affairs in shape and in less than five months was ready to set sail.


The original plans had called for a staff of 25 scientists, but in the end the number of vessels assigned to the expedition was reduced and all of the studies pertaining to the naval profession—hydrography, geography, meteorology, and physics—were turned over to the naval officers of the expedition. The reduced civilian scientific staff con- sisted of the following men: Horatio Hale, philologist; Charles Pickering and Titian R. Peale, naturalists; Joseph P. Couthouy, conchologist; James D. Dana, mineralogist; William Rich, botanist; William D. Brackenridge, horticulturist and assistant botanist; Alfred T. Agate and Joseph Drayton, draughtsmen. The pay of the scientists was $2,500 a year plus rations; that of the two artists, $2,000.

The squadron sailed from Norfolk, Virginia, on August 18, 1838. The vessels included the sloops-of-war Vincennes and Peacock, the brig Porpoise, the storeship Relief, and the two tenders Sea Gull and Flying Fish. The Sea Gull was lost off Cape Horn in the spring of 1839. The Relzef was such a slow sailer that she was sent home from Callao, Peru, the same summer. The Peacock was wrecked on a bar at the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon, and was replaced by a merchant vessel which had been renamed the Oregon. The Flying Fish was sold in Singapore as too unseaworthy to make the return voyage. Thus, the only vessels completing the entire trip were the Vincennes and the Porpoise.

From Norfolk the vessels crossed the Atlantic to Madeira and the Cape Verde Islands, recrossed the Atlantic to Rio de Janeiro, worked around Cape Horn, and arrived in Callao, Peru, in the summer of 1839. During the winter of 1838-1839, while based in Tierra del Fuego, Wilkes had made an excursion into the Antarctic with part of the squadron. On quitting Peru, either the squadron or individual vessels explored the South Pacific Islands, Australia, and New Zealand. Leaving Sydney, Australia, during December of 1840, Wilkes spent the months of January and February following the coastline of Antarctica until he convinced himself that he had found the continent.

From New Zealand the expedition went to the Hawaiian Islands, and then, during 1841, explored the northwest coast of the United States and California. The vessels left California to cruise again in the South Pacific, then proceeded to the Philippine Islands, Singapore, the Cape of Good Hope, and St. Helena.

1A recent study by B. P. Lambert and P. G. Law presented at a symposium on Antarctica, held in Buenos Aires, appears to confirm Wilkes’ assertions. They found a striking similarity between the shape of the coast as sketched by Wilkes in 1840 and a detailed chart based on their own explorations of the past two years as well as photographs taken by seaplanes from the 1947 expedition of the United States Navy.

They suggest that “‘the whole question of the reliability of Wilkes’ observations might well be reviewed”’ (The New York Times, January 10, 1960, vol. 119, p.1).


RETURN OF THE EXPEDITION.—The squadron finally arrived in New York in June 1842 after a voyage of three years and ten months and after having sailed 87,780 miles. The same confusion and poor publicity which surrounded the sailing of the expedition continued afterward, until 1872, when the final report was published.

At home, Wilkes did not find the glory or recognition that he had expected. He had left under a Democratic administration and returned to find the Whigs in power. At best, he found official indifference to his accomplishments. Charges and countercharges were made. Wilkes had antagonized so many of his subordinates with his severe and sometimes arbitrary discipline that he was forced to stand court-martial proceedings for tyranny and fraud. Some of his disgruntled subordinates specifically accused him of having falsified his claim that the expedition sighted Antarctica on January 19, 1840. He, in turn, launched countercharges of insubordination against some of the officers. At length the charges against Wilkes were dropped. With this unpleasant background, the task of pre- paring the results of the expedition for the press was commenced.

JOSEPH PITTY couTHOUy.—Apparently Gould was interested in accompanying the expedition as there is a note in his handwriting in the Boston Society of Natural History, dated October 1836, listing his qualifications. It is on a copy of a letter of recommendation for Gould by T. W. Harris, distinguished author of ‘Insecta of Massa- chusetts Injurious to Vegetation,” to Dr. Charles Pickering. Despite such a reference for Gould, however, Joseph Pitty Couthouy had been chosen to go on the voyage. In 1837 Couthouy was 29 years old and Gould, 31. Both were active members of the then flourishing Boston Society of Natural History but, at this time, neither had pub- lished very much. It is not known who else was considered for the post of conchologist; in any event, Couthouy’s desire to accompany the expedition was so strong that he presented himself in person before President Andrew Jackson to obtain a position on the scientific staff. President Jackson stated that he could not seriously entertain the application since the list of officers was complete. To this, Couthouy, a mariner by profession, replied, ‘‘Well, General, I’ll be hanged if I don’t go, if I have to go before the mast [i.e., as a common sailor].”’ This pleased ‘‘Old Hickory,’’ who told him, ‘Go back to Boston and I will see if anything can be done for you.” There, a few days after his return, he received his commission as Conchologist of the Scientific Corps (Dall, 1888, p. 109).

Before sailing on the expedition, Couthouy presented his shell col- lection to the Boston Society of Natural History on August 1, 1838 (Society’s original catalogue of shells, nos. 3001-3876), with the pro- viso that it could be reclaimed four years from that date. It is


not known if he exercised this right but, since this author found a number of his types still in the Society’s collection, apparently he did not.

Couthouy busied himself in collecting at the various ports of call and “made careful and suggestive notes of all the interesting species, and especially of the new or doubtful species,” with the intention of amplifying them on his return. When the expedition left Samoa, his health began to decline. Wilkes demanded that Couthouy turn over all notes and drawings to him, for Wilkes was preparing a narrative of the voyage (later published in five volumes). Couthouy refused, claiming that his subsequent work would be crippled without them. Wilkes thereupon suspended him and ordered him home ‘“‘for disobe- dience of orders.”

Gould (1852, p. v) says that “the numerous notes he [Couthouy] had subsequently made from day to day were left in an imperfect state. Still these would have been extremely valuable, especially those relating to the land shells of the Society, Samoa, and Sandwich Islands. But, unfortunately, repeated searches have failed to dis- cover them among the masses of documents pertaining to the Ex- pedition.”” The journal did not turn up until it was presented to the Boston Society of Natural History in 1931 by Mrs. G. Wigglesworth. It would be interesting indeed to know how she came by the volume, which is entitled “Journal on Board the Vincennes, January 30 to October 29, 1839,” and is illustrated with drawings in the text by Couthouy. In a pocket in the front cover there are 27 drawings, mostly by Drayton, along with some miscellaneous notes.

In the introduction to the journal Couthouy states, ‘I have con- cluded to adopt the form of a journal which besides a sort of dupli- cate of my notes shall contain a brief notice of daily events aboard ship not immediately relating to my own pursuits.”

The journal reveals an almost immediate and continued dissatis- faction on his part with the cooperation he received from naval per- sonnel. The officers made private collections of materials and Wilkes’ strict discipline often interfered with Couthouy’s labors. He writes, “That which I anticipated as a sort of pleasure, must be performed as a task of duty.”’ We will not dwell on the small affronts to per- sonal dignity as well as the lack of cooperation he suffered, as com- plaints of this sort seem to have been common from those who served under Wilkes.

An interesting anecdote passed on to the present author by an offi- cer of Boston’s staid Athenaeum, where Couthouy’s bearded portrait adorns a wall, is that, while in Tahiti, Couthouy had himself tatooed from neck to foot. As the old Italian saying observes, ‘‘If the story is not true, at least it is well devised.’ If it is true, it may explain


why his health declined and why his last entry in the Journal is dated October 1839, Pago Pago, Samoa Islands.

THE COLLECTORS AND COLLECTIONS.—Although the officers made private collections, Couthouy was aided in his efforts by the other members of the scientific staff, who also continued to collect shells after he left the expedition.

These scientists often made extensive excursions into the interior of the countries visited when time permitted. In North America, they explored the northwest coastal area, which is now the states of Washington and Oregon; Joseph Drayton, one of the artists, travelled along the Columbia River to the Blue Mountains; a group journeyed overland from Fort Vancouver to San Francisco; and another party went to Fort Nesqually (now Tacoma, Washington), to Fort Colville, and thence to the Kooskooska River (Clearwater River, Idaho). In South America some of the naturalists crossed the Cordilleras of the Andes from the Pacific to the sources of the Amazon River. Dr. Pickering made numerous excursions into Brazil. And in the Poly- nesian Islands explorations were made by other members of the staff.

Among the most important members of the party who helped Couthouy collect shells were Dr. Charles Pickering, anthropologist, Joseph Drayton, artist, and William D. Brackenridge, botanist. The names of these gentlemen, as well as the name of a Mrs. Mitchell of New South Wales, Australia, are often affixed as collectors of the new species described from the material sent home by the expedition.

DISPOSITION OF THE SHELL COLLECTION.—The collections were sent to Peale’s Museum in Philadelphia as circumstances permitted. Per- haps this was done because one of Peale’s sons, Titian R., was a member of the expedition’s staff. It would have been a more logical course to have sent the collections to the Academy of Natural Sci- ences of Philadelphia, which had been flourishing since 1812, rather than to Peale’s establishment, which was hardly a natural history museum. In any event, there was no place to send them in Wash- ington until, prior to the expedition’s return in 1840, several members of Congress and others interested in a national museum, organized the National Institute, later known as the National Institution. At this time the collections were removed from Peale’s in Philadelphia and placed in the custody of the Institution in Washington, where they remained in the Great Hall of the Patent Office until 1856, when they were turned over to the newly founded Smithsonian Institution.

The collections suffered from a series of incredible vicissitudes. Peale says, ‘I am ashamed to record the fact, that when the boxes and packages were placed in charge of the National Institution, the seals were broken and a general scramble for curiosities took place by


irresponsible members of the Society, in which some ‘Honorable’ men thoughtlessly took part. Many valuable specimens were lost partic- ularly shells and skins of birds’ (Haskell, 1942, p. 7).

Soon after his return to the United States in 1840, Couthouy went to Washington to study the shells that had been sent back. In the meantime, the National Institution had hired a clergyman who knew nothing of natural science to unpack the specimens. The worthy gentleman, noting that some of the numbered metal tags in the jars were discoloring the alcohol, carefully removed the tags, and placed them together in a separate jar without replacing them with any other means of identification! With one act he thus rendered it impossible for Couthouy to identify the specimens and match them with his notes. Moreover, some specimens were gone: prominent conchologists had been favored—for a consideration—with many rare specimens before any of the naturalists on the voyage had returned. Couthouy worked over the material as best he could until the expedition came home. At this time the already low salaries of the naturalists were decreased by some 44 percent. With a wife and two children to support, Couthouy quit in disgust. Eventually he became captain of a merchant vessel, and later he searched for treasure on the Spanish Main. He met his death during the Civil War when, as commander of the S. S. Chillicothe, he was killed by a rebel sharpshooter while his vessel was engaged against a number of troops on the banks of the Red River in Louisiana.

GOULD SELECTED TO DO THE REPORT ON MOLLUSKS.—With the return of the expedition, President John Tyler assigned Robert Greenhow, translator for the State Department, to draw up the re- ports and write the journal of the expedition. Fortunately for Wilkes, his friends in Congress blocked the appointment and referred the matter to the Joint Committee on the Library, which drew up the plan that was finally adopted. The Committee appointed Benjamin Tappan, Senator from Ohio, as its agent to supervise the preparation of the reports, with Wilkes, who had been detached from the Navy at the request of the committee, to be in immediate control. Joseph Drayton, the artist, was put in charge of the duties connected with actual publication, including the preparation of the drawings for ichthyology and conchology.

Couthouy’s resignation was timely; he must have been aware that, after his controversy with Wilkes, it would be highly doubtful that the latter would consider him for the job of writing the report on the Mollusca. Wilkes, in fact, never seems to have entertained the idea for a moment but urged that Drayton the artist do the report. Dray- ton was not a conchologist and Senator Tappan would not accept the proposal. Judging from the available correspondence, the Senator



wanted Dr. Gould, who was well known by this time for his ‘‘In- vertebrata of Massachusetts,’ to write the report.

Gould was most anxious to assume the task and wrote to Tappan in September 1843, stating he had heard, from Dr. Pickering, that “Mr. C. [Couthouy] told him [Pickering] that he would rather I should undertake the task than any other person.”’ Gould went on to say that, if he were to undertake the job, he would want the specimens sent to him in Boston. ‘On account of the books & collections in Boston, I doubt not the proper results will be obtained here with much more facility than in Washington .... If I undertake it I shall wish to dispatch the matter as soon as possible that everything may not be done in anticipation abroad.” A month later Gould again wrote Tappan:

I feel that no time is to be lost, inasmuch as every month will take something away from the novelties which we may hope to find in the collections. Every month brings in from abroad descriptions of new shells from the very regions visited by our Squadron; and if much more delay is made, there would be little inducement for any naturalist to undertake the task from the hope that he might contribute something new to the stock of knowledge... .

It has been intimated to me that Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Drayton have an idea, that after they have got all the papers arranged and figures en- graved, there will be time enough to take up the descriptions. You will readily see the mistake of this view; for it is clearly necessary to deter- mine first what is new or worthy of illustration—and this must require much investigation. I certainly do not wish to attach my name, as conchologist, to a selection either of shells or of figures which they might select forme. Mr. Pickering found that many things which are supposed to be new at Washington, have been long well known in Boston, and described abroad. It would be no credit to your Conchologist to be pub- lishing a book of old stories as something new (Haskell, 1942, p. 73).

This did not soften Wilkes and Gould was not employed.

Gould did not give up easily and wrote Tappan on December 17, 1843: “‘But the worst of all is that he [Wilkes] does not seem aware of the importance of putting into print as soon as may be descriptions of all objects regarded as new. It is not the date of discovery of an object which gives precedence to it among scientific men, but the date of publication.”

Negotiations with Gould began again in the spring of 1844 and went on until April 25 of 1845, when he began writing the report, although as late as May Wilkes was suggesting that Gould and Drayton work together under the supervision of Pickering. Gould finally won out, securing a salary of $3,200. His last bill for $1,000, rendered in 1852, was not paid until 1861!

At Gould’s request the shells were shipped to Boston for identifi- cation and, according to his plan, he began publishing brief notices


of the new species in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History as fast as he could describe them. The scope of the work was limited by the Library Committee’s decision that nothing should be printed that was not new. The Committee further stipulated that the entire work should be an American production, unaided by European scholars.

According to P. P. Carpenter (1863, p. 529), ‘Gould had access only to that part of the collection which happened to be on view during the brief visit that his professional duties allowed when visiting the capital; and that his request to be allowed to take doubtful shells to Europe for identification was refused.” Nevertheless, the corre- spondence quoted by Haskell (1942, p. 75) clearly indicates that Gould had the major portion of the shells in Boston although, on a subsequent visit to Washington, he located an additional 150 species to describe.

Evidently Wilkes’ antagonism toward Couthouy continued un- abated since he wished that no credit be given to Couthouy in the report. The following excerpt from a letter by Gould to Senator Tappan on October 15, 1845, appears to be an answer to a demand by Wilkes, through Tappan, to eliminate Couthouy’s name in the report. With this assumption in mind, the paragraph does not damn Couthouy with faint praise, as it seems to do, but is instead a subtle attempt to give him as full credit as possible without Gould himself incurring the wrath of Wilkes.

Though we may withhold his name entirely it cannot be concealed that he was actively engaged for at least one year. An entire exclusion of his name would seem vindictive, and will give him good ground so to represent it. Whereas I find the instances in which there would be any occasion to allude to him (among the shells) so very few that it would tell rather discreditably than creditably for him—His Journal is inter- esting and Captain Wilkes has drawn largely from it [a curious statement, since we are led to believe that Couthouy refused to turn his journal over to Wilkes, and that Gould was unable to locate it]; but his descriptions of new objects are very few, and written in a less precise and concise style than I should like to publish, and the names he has applied will very few of them stand and none of them need bear his name proper. After leaving Cape Horn he evidently attempted very little at descrip- tions. My own feeling would be that while he may have forfeited all right to the good will of those concerned in the expedition it would not be dishonest and certainly would be magnanimous, to allude to his labors wherever they have been important. If we avail ourselves of facts which we should not otherwise have at hand, should we under the catholic ethics of science which knows no partialities, hesitate to ac- knowledge them? This you will allow is a charitable view of the sub- ject—and will it not so heap coals of fire on his head and while it does us no harm, may save us much trouble (Haskell, 1942, p. 74).


Haskell does not share my view, but he thinks that Gould must have held one opinion of Couthouy’s contribution and then changed it since the Boston Society of Natural History in 1942 possessed a copy (subsequently sold to the Allan Hancock Foundation, Los Angeles, California) of Gould’s text of the Exploring Expedition Mollusks which bore the inscription ‘To Joseph P. Couthouy—this elaboration of the collections and observations, made in so great a part by him, is presented by Augustus A. Gould.” As I said above, I believe the letter quoted was a subterfuge and that Gould’s praise therein was sincere.

Senator Tappan wrote to Gould in January of 1845 that he wanted the work completed by December of that year. Gould said this was impossible and, though both Wilkes and Drayton were sorely vexed, the text did not appear until December of 1852. The atlas of plates is dated 1856, but it was not actually finished and distributed until 1860—and Tappan wanted it done by December 1845! The other volumes of the series were just as slow in appearing as was Gould’s volume.

The government printed only 100 copies of the text and the same number of the atlas. Of the text, 21 copies were destroyed by fire and not replaced. Fifty-eight copies of the text and plates were sent to the State Department from the printer in Philadelphia on December 15, 1852, and again the same amount on December 15, 1860. The distribution of the copies sent to the Department of State was deter- mined by Congress: one copy to each of the United States; two each to Great Britain, France, and Russia; one each to 25 other countries; two to the Library of Congress; one each to Wilkes, Hudson, and Ringgold, commanders of the major expedition vessels; one to the Naval Lyceum at Brooklyn, New York. The remaining volumes were to be kept for distribution to each new state as it entered the union and, later, other foreign countries were included.

Each author was permitted to have printed some copies for his own distribution. The number ranged from 100 to 150 copies. According to a letter from Drayton, ‘‘Gould has determined to print one hundred copies on government paper.” The distinguishing points between the two editions are minor. The official edition carries no publisher’s imprint, merely that of the printer C. Sherman. The unofficial issue of the text reads: Boston—Gould & Lincoln. The official edition has a half-title with the phrase “By authority of Congress.” This is lacking in the unofficial edition. The atlas has, in addition, a few other minor differences which are discussed in the bibliography of Gould’s works in this paper.

Congress expressly desired that these reports rival those being published at the same time from the French expedition on the Astro-


labe. In regard to the molluscan section only, the report almost does this, but the quality of the French color engravings of the period seldom has been equaled.

As mentioned earlier, the collection of mollusks was under the care of the National Institution, where it suffered the vicissitudes already described. If the entire collection was not borrowed by Dr. Gould, it seems certain at least that he had the new species in Boston. When they were returned, as also stated earlier, they were turned over to the newly founded Smithsonian Institution. There is a letter, how- ever, in the Boston Society of Natural History (now the Museum of Science) from P. P. Carpenter to Gould, dated October 23, 1859, which says, ‘‘Would you return the Exploring Expedition Shells now in your possession?”’ According to Carpenter (1863, p. 530), ‘‘The shells remained unopened in 1859-1860 and the types not accessible, till at the request of Prof. Henry, I undertook the arrangement of the collections. Fortunately, a considerable