368 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
in regard to cases where two or three shells have evidently 
been confused under one appellation, the authority of an un- 
authenticated locality, unless supported by other evidence, must ' 
succumb to that of the synonymy. The contrary has been the 
rule with one of our most distinguished naturalists. 
The manuscript of the younger Linné quotes as an additional 
synonym “ Pet. Gaz. pl. 92, f. 4.” 
Helix hispida. 
One specimen alone in the Linnean cabinet agrees with the 
definition of this species, and, as an example is stated to be 
present in the collection, we may fairly regard that individual 
as the type. It is, as might be expected from the “ pilis raris 
brevissimis”’ of the ‘ Fauna Suecica,’ the variety concinna (Gray, 
L. and F. W. Shells Brit. f. 135) of the Helix hispida of Dra- 
parnaud, &c. The younger Linné has illustrated the descrip- 
tion by a reference to “ Pet. Gaz. 93, f.13.” This engraving 
represents the under surface of a British shell, and is not a 
bad likeness ofthe Linnean example. 
Helix anpullacea, 
Conchologists have not succeeded in ascertaining what species 
of Ampullaria (for to that genus it undoubtedly belonged) was 
designed by Linneus. No data, indeed, were published by 
which an indisputable conclusion could be arrived at; for the 
two illustrations cited in the ‘Museum’ and in the tenth edition 
of the ‘Systema’ could not be recognised with certainty, and, as 
well as the many additional figures of Seba, represented distinct 
species. A marked example of the shell originally intended by 
our author in his ‘Systema’ is still preserved in his collection, 
and agrees precisely with his account of it in that work. It is 
not surprising that he was unable to indicate a correct delinea- 
tion of it, since none were extant, until the very recent pub- 
lication of Philippi’s Monograph, in Kuster’s edition of the 
‘Conchylien Cabinet. As usual, a very different species 
