HELIX. 369 
(“Spira parum convexa, obtusiuscula,” apparently contradicted 
by the subsequent “ Noscitur spira ventricosiore’’) was described 
in the ‘Museum Ulrice :’ the details of that work, however, and 
the rude figure of Rumphius (globosa?) would apply to more 
species than one; hence the ampullacea of that book cannot be 
regarded as defined, and the name is, consequently, left free to 
that of the ‘Systema’ and the cabinet. Philippi, to whom I 
sent a sketch of the typical example, has preferred to bestow a 
new appellation upon it: it is the A. Linnei of his Monograph 
(pl. 20, f. 6), to which the cited figure of Gualtier (pl. 1, f. R) 
was the nearest approximation of the engravings available at 
that period. 
Helix pomatta. 
The Helix pomatia of authors is marked for this species in 
the Linnean collection (Drap. Mol. France, pl. 5, f. 20, but 
bandless). 
Helix glauca. 
Gronovius, Miiller, and Chemnitz did not determine this 
species; Born, Gmelin, Dillwyn, and Deshayes recognised it in 
the Ampullaria effusa ; Schréter, who has copied the original 
description, owning that he had not seen a specimen, coun- 
tenanced this identification by citing a representation of that 
shell (Knorr, pt. 5, pl. 5, f. 3) as illustrative. The diagnosis of 
the H. glauca as it appears in both editions of the ‘Systema’ 
is very indefinite, but the more detailed description in the 
‘Museum Ulrice’ agrees very fairly with that shell, and favours 
the above conclusion. Whilst concurring in this identification, 
one naturally feels surprised that the excellent representation 
of A. effusa in the ponderous work of Seba (Mus. vol. ii. pl. 40, 
f. 3, 4,5) was not indicated by our author; but the conchological 
portion of those bulky volumes was not once quoted through- 
out the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ although profusely enough referred 
to in the last edition of the ‘Systema’ for such species as were 
(which this was not) in his own private collection. 
3B 
