426 BemarJcs on British Land and Fresh-water Shells. 



PlanSrbis nitidus {Jig, 182. h), — Does not Lamarck include 

 two species under this name, viz. the Nautilus lacustris {i\ and 

 i/eHx fontana of EngUsh authors ? The description and refer- 

 ence to Draparnaud evidently belong to the latter shell ; the 

 references to Muller and Gmelin probably to the former, but 

 not possessing the works of either of the two last-mentioned 

 authors, I cannot determine. 



Sticci7iea amphibia {fig, 183. 7c). — Is this the //elix putris, or 

 H. limosa of Linnaeus ? Cuvier, Lamarck, and Fleming say the 

 former. But it is worthy of observation, that Linnaeus, in his 

 Systema Naturce, refers to Gualter t. 5. f. h. for a figure of the 

 latter shell, which figure is undoubtedly the Succinea am- 

 phibia. The habitat given by him for the H. limosa also accords 

 better than that of the H, putris, with the shell in question. 

 Did Linnaeus possess a cabinet of the shells described by him 

 in the Syst. Nat.; and, if so, did it, with his herbarium, get 

 into the hands of the late lamented President of the Linnaean 

 Society? Many difficulties might be cleared up on a reference 

 to the shells, if in existence. 



Clausilia ventricbsa, Drap. {I). — I consider this to be the shell 

 described by English authors under the name of Turbo bipli- 

 catus. Dr. Fleming is of opinion, however, that Draparnaud 

 has not described our shell. The two specimens in my pos- 

 sesions, and which I received from that excellent naturalist, 

 Mr. R. Leyland of Halifax, accord well with Draparnaud's 

 figure, and very nearly so with his description. 



Clausilia solida, Drap. {m), — Is this the Turbo labiatus of 

 English authors; and, if not, has the latter shell been de- 

 scribed by any of the Continental writers, and under what 

 name ? I have not seen the shell. 



Pupa britdnnica {n). — I have ventured to give this name to 

 the Turbo ,,tridens of English authors, as the shell appears to 

 be unknovm among the Continental conchologists. It is not 

 the Pupa tridens of Lamarck, and many of Dillwyn's syno- 

 nymes are erroneous. Dr. Fleiiiiiig places this species in the 

 new genus Azeca, but appears dissatisfied with its station, and 

 suspects it may eventually associate with his genus Cary- 

 chium; in this, however, he is incorrect, since the animal, in 

 the latter genus, possesses only two tentacula, whilst the 



