370 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
Linneeus does not appear to have possessed a copy of that 
book; at least his library did not include one when it was 
purchased by the Linnean Society of London. ‘This may 
account, in some measure, for the peculiar carelessness he has 
displayed in his references to Seba, as it is not improbable that 
they were jotted down from some public or regal copy, without 
any comparison of the drawings with his typical specimens. 
There are few naturalists who have not sometimes been com- 
pelled to do the like. 
Helix ctiviwa. 
The numerals are partially erased on that specimen in the 
Linnean cabinet which alone agrees with the specific descrip- 
tion. The shell is fairly represented by the Heli citrina of | 
Chemnitz (Conch. Cab. vol. ix. pl. 131, f. 1170, 1171), having 
probably been identified by successive writers, through the | 
fuller details of the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ and the references to | 
Argenyille and Seba. As to the synonym of Gualtier, it de- | 
monstrates the extreme carelessness of our author (or his 
printer). In the tenth edition of the ‘Systema,’ plate 1, f..D, of | ) 
that publication was cited (a young Helix aspersa of Miiller) ; 
this was changed into plate 2, f. D (HZ. nemoralis) in the twelfth 
edition: in the ‘Museum Ulrice’ alone the reference stood 
correctly, plate 3, f. D. 
Helix avbustorun, 
The universal recognition of this snail is rather owing to the | 
language of the ‘Fauna Suecica’ and to the cited figure of 
Lister (Angl. t. 2, f. 4), than to the diagnosis in the ‘ Systema,’ | 
or to the figure of Argenville. he latter synonym must cer- | 
tainly be expunged; the drawing looks more like Helix nemo- 
ralis. The H. arbustorum of authors is present in the Linnean | 
collection; and in the manuscript of the younger Linné “ Seba, 
Mus. iii. t. 38, f. 68” has been correctly referred to. 
