30 COCKERELL AND COLLINGE : CHECK-LIST OF SLUGS. 



P. deshaxesii is like inacnlnta externally, except for tlie finer 

 reticulation and the absence of the black spots and streaks. 

 The Caucasus olivieri presents an extraordinary resem- 

 blance to maculata var. olivacea, but the reticulation is not 

 so fine. In the specimens seen by me, the jaw of maculata 

 was broad and rounded at the ends, whereas the jaw of 

 olivieri had the ends tapering. Whether the above 

 distinctions are constant can only be learned from the 

 examination of a larger series than I have had access to.^- 

 Setenochlamys. This genus is referred to Tris^otwchlamifiCB 

 in consequence of the statements made by Simroth in his 

 work on the slugs of Portugal, &c. 

 FluioniincE n. subfam. The information given by Simroth 

 (I.e.) shows the affinities oi Plutonia to be with Vitriniiue; 

 and consequently, according to my views, the genus must 

 be placed in a new sub-family, which I call Flutofiiince. 

 Plutonia. It appears that this name has also been used for 

 a genus of trilobites." 

 20 1 b. sinirothi. This is the pale variety from Fayal ; Simroth, I.e., 



taf. I, f. 4. 

 207-211. My impression is that these five names represent but 

 one species of Mariaella., but, as usual, I give them the 

 benefit of the doubt. The oldest name is injumata. 

 218 ^. doria. I do not know any good reason for considering this 

 a species distinct from beccarii. 

 Austetiia. I have removed from this genus various species 

 wrongly included in it by authors {e.g., dimidiata, mitrnta, 

 australis), but the present list includes several which do 

 not seem to be congeneric with A. gigns. I must leave it 

 to those who are familiar with these species to finally settle 

 where they should be placed. 

 249 b. radha. This may be a distinct species. 



Parmella. I follow Mr. Hedley in placing this in the 

 Helicarionince. 



'"The separation of species upon the form of reticulation or number of ruga; is the very latest 

 from the school of systematists. Some years ago I made some similar observations \\^or\ Anon 

 empificoruvi. I have not the figures by me, but I remember that there w.-is a great variability 

 shown. Simroth is in all probability correct in assuming olivieri to be tlie only valid species, 

 but, at the same time a careful incjuiry upon the structure of the other so-called species is very 

 desirable.— W. E. C. 



'•■'If any change is necessary, the generic name had better be altered, seeing that it is pre- 

 occupied. I would therefore suggest that the subfamily, 6tc., read: — 

 Vitriplutoniina;, Cllge. 



= Plutoniina;, CklL 

 Vitriplutonia, Cllge. 

 = Plutonia, Stab. 



