AZOREAX GROUP. 41 



Bulimiis Forbesianus, Morel., Hist. Xat. des Agor. 192. t. 4. 



f. 5 (1860) 

 „ „ Drouet, Faun. Acor. 161 (1861) 



Habitat Terceira, Graciosa, Pico, et Fayal; exemplaribus e 

 Terceira plerumque crassioribus (quare minus translucentibus), 

 ac magis aut etiam omnino concoloribus. 



This is apparently larger and more elongated than any of 

 the foregoing species, its average leng-tb being about 15 milli- 

 metres ; and it seems to be somewhat slender and subdia- 

 phanous, rather shining, granulated at the base, and usually 

 marbled or variegated with irregular, more or less confluent 

 and fragmentary, paler lines and spots ; though some examples, 

 particularly those fr-om Terceira, are said to be concolorous. 

 There can be little question that it is very closely allied to the 

 B. variatus, W. et B. (to which indeed it was originally re- 

 ferred by Pfeiffer) ; and, considering the extreme inconstancy 

 of that species in the Canarian archipelago, I cannot but feel 

 doubtful whether it ought to be regarded as more than a modi- 

 fication of the latter, and one moreover which is not absolutely 

 similar even in the four islands — Terceira, Graciosa, Pico, and 

 Fayal — on which it is said to occur. 



Bidinms variatus. 



Bulimus variatus, W. et B., Ann. des Sc. Xat. 28. Syn. 326 

 (1833) 

 „ „ Pfein'., Mon. Hel. ii. 125 (1845) 



„ „ Morel., Hist. Xat. des Acor. 192 (1860) 



„ „ Drouet, Faun. Agor. 160 {1861) 



Habitat Sta. Maria, et recens et sernifossilis ; sub lapidibus 

 baud infrequens. 



I have not been able to procure a type from these islands for 

 comparison, but the B. variatus, W. et B., which is so widely 

 spread in the Canaries, and which presents so many different 

 modifications for different islands of the Group, is said both by 

 Morelet and Drouet to occur in Sta. Maria; and the latter 

 mentions that it like\vise exists in a subfossil state (in company 

 with the Helix vetusta, &c.) near Praya, on the southern coast. 

 Considering how little in common, as regards their true faunas 

 {i. e. after the manifestly introduced species have been ehmi- 

 nated), the Azorean and Canarian archipelagos have with each 

 other, it is certainly strange that one of the most unmistakeably 

 indigenous members of the latter should be found, both recent 

 and subfossilized, in the former. Judging from Drouet's diag- 

 nosis, the examples from the Azores would seem to accord better 

 perhaps with the Teneriffan ones (which represent the ' status 



