46 Semarhs on Certain Sjyecies of 



on the identity of tlie 11. cellaria of America and Europe. 

 On the latter point I entirely agree Avitli them, but the question 

 as to H. glapliyra is in no way aifected. 



Looking at Say's description, I cannot believe that liis sliell, 

 found by Mr. Ord, was II. cellaria. Say describes the nnibili- 

 cus of ^. glaphyra as "moderate, not exhibiting the volutions," 

 and compares the species with II. nitens of Europe, " particu- 

 larly in being whitish beneath." At that date JI. 7iite7is Gmel. 

 and II nitens Maton and Rackett were known to conchologists, 

 the one placed by Pfeiffer in the synonymy of H. nitida MiilL, 

 and the other in that of II. cellaria MiilL, both widely nmbili- 

 cate, and showing the volutions to the apex, but only the latter 

 " whitish beneath." It can scarcely be doubted that Say actu- 

 ally referred to II. nitens Mat. and Rack,, noticing as a distin- 

 guishing character in II. glaplnjra., that the volutions are not 

 so exhibited in the umbilicus. Say describes three other 

 species of Helix as having the umbilicus '"'•moderate^' viz. 

 sejjtemvolva., avara, and tridentata. As to the first he adds, " at- 

 tenuated to the apex so as to exhibit the remaining volutions," 

 to the second, " not exhibiting the volutions," but no further 

 detail is given as to the umbilicus of the third species. 



I know not how any one can assume that Say would have 

 described the umbilicus of a shell identical with the European 

 or American cellaria, in the language employed by him in his 

 diagnosis of glapliyra. The more I study his descriptions, the 

 more I appreciate his general acuteness and accuracy, and 

 believe that full justice has not been done to his labors. 



Say described ^ Z^^er« in 1821 as having the "umbilicus 

 very small," and remarked that it " approaches nearest to H. 

 glaphyra., but is readily distinguished by the greater convexity 

 of the spire, and the smaller umbilicus." 



This is relied upon as supporting the opinion that glaphyra 

 and cellaria are identical, or at least that the former and inor- 

 nata Binney are not so. 



H. inornata Say (1822), which is I consider II. laevigata 



