BY JAMES C. COX, M.D., F.L.S., ETC. 589 



The most recent Monograph written on this genus was in 

 1876, by the late lamented Louis Pfeiffer, in his Monographise 

 Auriculaceorum, it was in fact the last work written by that able 

 and accomplished author, in which he records no less than forty- 

 eight species of this genus and divides them into four sections. 



1st Those species with the umbilicus transversely rimate. 

 2nd Those with the umbilicus rather closed. 

 3rd Those where the umbilicus is openly perforated or unibili- 

 cated. 



■1th Doubtful species. 



I am not inclined to place much value on the division of 

 the genus by the condition of the umbilicus. I find that it 

 varies very much in the same species in mature specimens even 

 collected at the same locality. Since the publication of the 

 valuable Monagraph mentioned, four other species have been 

 described, so that up to the present date I find the number of 

 species recorded as fifty -two. 



Many of the species recorded by Pfeiffer he had never had an 

 opportunity of examining, otherwise his master-band, I am 

 quite sure, would have considerably reduced this number. 

 Pfeiffer was too honourable a Monographer to overlook or despise 

 the work of his fellow Conchologists; he never rejected the records 

 of others until he had had an opportunity of examining the 

 specimens himself, then he was not slow to point out what he 

 considered erroneous repetition, but it was always done with a 

 respect that has made his loss so universally lamented. 



This genus, like many others, has received a variety of names, 

 in fact up to a certain period it would almost appear that every 

 author writing on the subject considered it necessary to give it a 

 new appellation. The first species of the genus recorded was by 

 Linneus in 1758, in his Sy sterna Naturse, 10th edition, Vol. I., 

 p. 768, No. 571, as Helix Scarabceus ; this same species was 



