i5ki Scientific Notices'^Zoohgf/,- fAtro* 



Zoology, 



2. On the Anatomical Difference between Helix Hortensis and 

 H. 'Nemoralis, By J. E. Gray, Esq. 



There has been a difference of opinion among the various 

 Enghsh and Continental zoologists respecting the permanency 

 of the distijiction between Helix Hortensis and //. NemoraliSf 

 which certainly at first sight appear very distinct, both on 

 account of the small size, thinness, and more polished surface, 

 as well as the white lip of Helix Hortensis ; but no one has yet 

 taken any notice that there exists a difference in the form of 

 that part of the generative organs of the shell called visicula 

 miiltifida by Cuvier in his dissection of Helix Pornatia ; in one 

 (H. Nemoralis) it is much more lobed than in the other ; Cuvier's 

 name for this organ is bad, as in several of the Helices it is 

 singly-forked, in others doubly-forked, and rarely many cut. 



This variety existing in the several organs is curious, as I am 

 informed by a friend, whose experiments I hope will be shortly 

 published, that the two species will breed together. Pioret 

 perhaps had the knowledge of this fact when he named the 

 Drown mouth (variety of Helix Nemoralis) as a species, with 

 the name of H* Hybrida. 



3. On^ Siren Lacertina. 



Rusconi having observed that the lungs of the Siren Lacertina 

 were extended to the end of the abdomen, and that these organs 

 only did so in the larva of the salamander, used this fact as an 

 argument that the Siren was only a larva ; but Mr. Grauenhorst 

 has weakened the position by observing that the lungs of the 

 perfect salamander are sometimes similarly extended. — (7m, 

 1824,673.) 



4. On the Animal of Argonauta. 



It has been a matter of considerable dispute amongst the 

 modern zoologists to know if the animal usually found in the 

 Paper Nautilus described by Aristotle and Pliny, was the real 

 former of the shell, or only a parasitical inhabitant similar to 

 the soldier crab, 8cc. Dr. Leach, Mr, Sai/, and M, Blainville. 

 were of the latter opinion, apparent with great reason, Cnvier 

 and Dumerit combated their opinions ; and lately Baron 

 FerussaCy M. Ranzaniy and the celebrated Sicilian naturalist, 

 Polif has supported the opinion of the latter authors. The 

 strongest fact brought forward in the support of their position, 

 is that both Mr. Duvernoy and Poh have discovered the exist- 

 ence of the shell on the embryo found in the eggs attached to 

 the animals, which are said to be the true inhabitants of the 

 shell. Sir E. Home ni his paper (in the Phil. Trans.) appears 

 to refer to the observations of the former, when he observes, 

 that the yolk must have l)een mistaken for the shell. 



