60 HELICID^. 



was first separated from the latter genus by M. Bru- 

 guiere, who included it in his genus Bulimus. M. Dra- 

 pamaud, dissatisfied with this arrangement, which brought 

 together species connected only by loose analogies, insti- 

 tuted the present genus, the type of which was Helix 

 sucdnea, Miiller, (^Helix putris; Lin.) and hence the 

 specific name of M. Miiller was adopted as the generic 

 term. About the same time, M. Lamarck, ignorant 

 apparently of what had been done by M. Draparnaud, 

 proposed his genus Amphihulimus, founded on another 

 species evidently belonging to the same generic group. 

 The propriety of the generic distinction was generally 

 admitted, and the name of M. Draparnaud was pre- 

 ferred. M. Ferussac, not finding the anatomical char- 

 acters of the genus sufiSciently different from those of 

 Helix to justify its continuance, according to his views, 

 fonned of it a suborduiate division of his great genus 

 Helix, with the title of sub-genus, under the name of 

 Coclilohydra. The system of M. Ferussac, however, 

 not having been generally adopted, either within or out 

 of France, the genus Sucdnea is very generally retained, 

 and will probably keep its place, from considerations of 

 convenience if from no other, until the principles of clas- 

 sification shall be placed on a certain basis. M. Des- 

 hayes, with whom the ideas of M. Ferussac found but 

 little favor, seems to intimate indeed, that the anatomical 

 pecuharities of Sucdnea are sufficient to confirm the 

 distinction.' He asserts that he found important differ- 



' Lamarck, 2d edit., Art. Sucdnea. 



