MADEIRAN OROUP. 75 



Vitrina ruivensis {Couthouy\ Oould, Proc. Bost. Soc. N.H. 

 ii. 180 (1848) 

 „ „ Pfeiff., Mon. Hel. ii. 507 (1848) 



„ Belinii, Loiue, Ann. Nat. Hist. ix. 112 (1852) 

 „ Teneriffge, Id. [nee Q. et G. ; 1827], Proc. ZouL Soc. 



Lond. 163 (1854) 

 „ ruivensis, Alh., Mai. Mad. 15. t. 2. f. 4-6 (1854) 

 „ Teneriffre, Paiva, Mon. Moll. Mad. 9 (1867) 

 „ ruivensis, Pfeiff., Mon. Hel. vii. 20 (1876) 

 Habitat Madf^ram ; in humidis editioribus, prsecipue sylva- 

 ticis, baud infrequens. In stratu concbylifero ad Canipal semi- 

 fossilis parce reperitur. 



Tbe Haliotis-shaiped outline (tbe nucleus being lateral, 

 rather than subcentral), enormous aperture, and comparatively 

 depressed form of tbis large Vitrina, added to its fewer volu- 

 tions (tbere being only two of them, or at tbe utmost 2|), its 

 flattened apex and its consequently indistinct suture, will suffice 

 to separate it from tbe otber species witb which we are bere 

 concerned. It is not quite so highly polished, usually, as the 

 V. nitida {i.e. tbe V. Lamarckii, Lowe, nee Fer) ; and tbere 

 are more appreciable indications beneath a higb magnifying 

 power of a few minute, broken-up spiral lines, or (as it were) 

 scratches. The obsolete transverse plicse, also, or folds, are, for 

 tbe most part, more curved and radiating. 



Altbough less common than the V. nitida, the present 

 Vitrina is tolerably abundant at a high elevation in Madeira 

 proper, — where it occurs in tbe damp sylvan regions, principally 

 under stones and logs of decaying wood ; and it is found spar- 

 ingly, in a subfossil state, at Canijal. 



As regards its synonymy, this Vitrina is a little complicated. 

 Mr. Lowe originally cited it as a mere phasis of the ' V La- 

 marckii ' as understood by him [i.e. of the nitida, Gould), but 

 be afterwards published it (in 1852) as tbe V. Behnii — in honour 

 of the Professor at Kiel, wbo had pointed out to bim what be 

 conceived to be its true differential characters. But in the 

 meanwhile it had been (in 1848) described by Grould under 

 Couthouy's manuscript name ' ruivensis,''- — wbich seems to me 

 (as it did, apparently, to Dr. Albers) to be tbe oldest title for 

 the species on which we can absolutely depend. True it is 

 that Mr. Lowe, in bis last enumeration of tbe Madeiran Mol- 

 lusca, identified it with the Canarian V. Teneriffoi of Quoy and 

 Gaimard (which bears tbe date 1827): but then the V. Tene- 

 riffoi proves to be identical with the genuine, and previously 

 described, V. Lamarckii (wbich is expressly registered by 

 Ferussac as having come from Teneriffe), — as is manifest from 

 the diagnosis of it which is quoted by Pfeiffer, and as indeed 



