CANARIAN GROUP. 413 



Helix monilifera. 



Helix monilifera, W. et B., Ann. des Sc. Nat. 38. syn. 315 



(1833) 

 „ „ dVrb., in W. etB. Hist. 61. t. 1. f. 21, 22 



(1839) 

 „ lancerottensis, Id., [sed non iig".], ibid. 60 (1839) 

 „ monilifera, Pfeif-^ ^^on. Hel. i. 160 (1848) 

 „ „ Mouss., Sch'W. Denkschrift, xv. 5 (1857) 



„ „ Id., Faun. Mai. des Can. 39 (1872) 



Habitat Lanzarotam, Fuerteventuram, Canariam Grandem, 

 Teneriffam, Gromeram, et Palmam (in Hierro sola adbuc baud 

 detecta) ; in aridis apricis inferioribus, sub lapidibus, prsesertim 

 juxta mare. 



A most distinct and well marked little Helix, and one 

 wbich in all probability is quite universal tbrougbout tbe 

 Canarian arcbipelago, tbough it does not bappen up to tbe 

 present date to bave been observed in Hierro. In tbe otber six 

 islands, bowever, it was taken by Mr. Lowe and myself; and it 

 appears to bave been found in Lanzarote and Fuerteventura by 

 Webb and Bertbelot, Fritscb, and Eeiss, in Grrand Canary by 

 Webb and Bertbelot, and Grrasset, and in Palma by Blauner. 

 Mousson says : ' Cette espece traverse, comme on voit, toute la 

 serie des Canaries ;' yet, by bis own sbewing, be makes no re- 

 ference to its existence in eitber Gromera or Hierro. Never- 

 theless we met witb it in tbe former of those islands, and I 

 bave little doubt that it must occur equally in tbe latter. 



In Lanzarote our specimens were principally from tbe lofty 

 sea-cliffs known as tbe Eisco (overlooking tbe Salinas), in tbe 

 extreme north of that island, — which seems to be the locality 

 from whence Webb's types were originally obtained ; as well as 

 from Chache, Los Llanos, Temise, and the neighbourhood of 

 Arrecife (particularly along the road to Yaiza). The Fuerte- 

 venturan ones were mainly from the Eio Palmas. Those from 



have been obtained by M. Terver from bags of dried orchil, the precise origin 

 of which was confessedly unknown), as sjaecies founded wpon evidence 

 which was altogether untrustworthy and insuthcient, it may jjerhaps seem 

 a little inconsistent that I should not have acted in a similar manner 

 as regards Shuttle worth's H. umMaula and ccementitia.i — both of which are 

 orchil shells of Terver's, and both of which exist equally (and only) in 

 the collection at Marseilles ; and possiblj^ indeed it would have been wiser 

 had I refused to admit them. Still, since both species (judging from their 

 published diagnoses) are more on the Canarian pattern than the others 

 to which I have above alluded, and since in one or two exceptional in- 

 stances M. Terver's guesses concerning habitat turned out to be correct, I 

 have given them the advantage of the doubt by admitting them; though 

 I am nevertheless far from satisfied that it would not have been better, 

 until respectable evidence has been adduced, to have rejected them in toto. 



