HELIX. Bie 
Helix sonavta. 
No shell in the Linnean cabinet agrees with the description 
of this species, except that (Seba, Mus. vol. 11. pl. 38, f. 55, 53) 
which has been generally admitted to be its representative, the 
Helix zonaria as defined by Pfeiffer in his Monograph of 
Helices. To my eyes the Linnean specimens appear also very 
similar to those delineated under this name by Chemnitz 
(Conch. Cab. vol. ix. pl. 82, f. 1188, 1189), but I observe that 
Pfeiffer has referred the former alone of these two drawings to 
zonalis; the latter being ascribed by him to H. coluber. 
Helix ungiulina. 
I perceive no shell in the Linnean cabinet which at all 
coincides with the ideal of this species, a circumstance of little 
importance, since the description in the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ and 
the references to Rumphius (pl. 27, f. 9) and his copyist Klein 
(Ost. pl. 1, f. 11) have enabled naturalists to identify it, with 
sufficient certainty, as the Helix ungulina (Born. Test. Mus. 
Vind. pl. 15, f. 1) of Pfeiffer’s Monograph. The synonym of 
Petiver (Gaz. pl. 1, f. 6) must be erased, as the drawing was 
meant for the Cyclostoma planorbulum, a shell which neither 
corresponds with the original definition in the tenth edition of 
the ‘Systema’ (where the correct reference to Rumphius stands 
alone), nor with the more ample details in the descriptive 
catalogue of the Queen of Sweden’s collection. 
Helix itala. 
Having satisfied myself, by the process of analysis so often 
alluded to, that no shell in the Linnean cabinet, except the 
Helix ericetorwm of authors (Chemnitz, Conch. Cab. vol. ix. 
pl. 132, f. 1192, 1193), accurately coincided with the diagnosis 
of this species, I was agreeably surprised by discerning the 
