COCKERELL AND COLLIXGE ; CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 23 



As it seems to me, the real question of the specific or 

 subspecific vaHdity of cinereo-7iiger is not solved by the 

 statements made by Messrs. Roebuck and ColHnge, and it 

 still remains to be asked, can both maxiiims and cinereo- 

 niger be obtained from eggs laid by a single slug of either 

 kind ? If not — and I do not believe myself that they could 

 — ciiureo-niger is a valid subspecies or species. Then, if it 

 be found (as seems to be the case) that ci7iereo-ni^er, thus 

 distinct, intergrades with niaxvniis in certain localities, it is 

 not a species but a subspecies, and that, I believe, is its 

 proper rank. 



Of course it follows from this way of looking at the 

 matter, that some of the older and more distinct varieties 

 of horses, dogs, &c., known to have developed under 

 domestication, are subspecifically distinct, and this, 

 I think, is a just conclusion. 



10. I have restored the x\a.mQ geographicus, as it no doubt belongs 

 to dacaiiipi, and is older and also appropriate. 



13. L. ftmgivorus is placed by its author in Malacolimax, but 

 Simroth says it is a young cinereo-niger form ! 



2 1. Bottger described it as a variety of maximus, his name takes 

 priority. 



31. To teiiellus have been referred aureus, Gmel., and squam- 

 matinus, Morel., but it appears that the first is an A /ion, 

 the second a Geomalaais. 

 31 /'. I have seen no description oigriseus. 



34. L. raymofidiafius. Simroth has referred this name to a variety 

 of Amalia gagates, but I can hardly believe he is right. 

 Pollonera has recognised a true Malacolimax as raymon- 

 dianus. 



36. L. fiyctelius. Mr. Pollonera has sent me this from Algeria. 



A species formerly called nyctelius by Simroth seems to be 

 subsaxar^iis. 



37. L. valentiamis. According to Simroth, this is a race of 



arborum {marginatus). Mr. Pollonera sent me a specimen 

 from Barcelona, and it seemed to me quite distinct from 

 marginatus. However, so far as external marks went, 

 I could see no specific difference between valentianus and 

 nyctelius. 



38. L.fulvus. Simroth suggests that this may be a yellow form 



of tenellus. 

 41. L. tnarginatus. I believe sylvestris is the same, but it is too 

 poorly described to be certainly recognisable. 



