HELIX. 859 
Belix striatula, 
The H.-striatula of Miiller was not intended for the species 
thus named in the ‘Systema,’ the latter having been referred 
with doubt by that author to his H. polita. Chemnitz, Schroter, 
Dillwyn, &c., despaired of identifying the Linnean shell: 
Gmelin mixed up the description of polita with the diagnosis 
of striatula. Draparnaud, Michaud, Collard de Cherres, 
Deshayes, Rossmiissler, Pfeiffer, &c., have with much pro- 
bability suggested for it the Helix lenticula (of Férussac), a 
native of Algiers, which, except perchance in the “ apertura 
subrotundo-lunata,” precisely corresponds to the specific cha- 
racters. Itis not advisable, however, to deprive a well-known 
shell of its established name, by transferring to it that of a 
species which is not well constituted, and whose diagnosis, 
brief as it is, does not strictly correspond with all the charac- 
teristics. Menke, in an article in the ‘ Zeitschrift fiir Malaco- 
zoologie,’ devoted to the especial investigation of some of the 
ambiguous Algerine species of the ‘Systema,’ has arrived at 
the conclusion that the striatula of Linnzeus was identical with 
the H. amanda of Rossmiissler (Ic. f. 449). 'I'wo circumstances 
corroborate this identification. The first is a manuscript re- 
ference in our author’s revised ‘Systema’ to Petiver’s ‘ Gazo- 
phylacium,’ plate 17, figure 6, which rude drawing has very 
much the aspect of amanda (though probably meant for caperata 
or virgata), and assuredly exhibits the nearest approach to its 
features to be found in the engravings of that early period: the 
second, the preservation of a bleached individual (“‘ grisea”’) of 
that pretty species in the Linnean cabinet. The ‘umbilicus 
patulus” seems opposed to the identification, but as the per- 
foration is declared by Linneus to be narrow in the contrast of 
its features with those of Algira, it seems probable that the 
monosyllable “non” may have been omitted by the printer. 
