HELIX. oD 
in both that publication and the ‘Systema’ (the “intus alba” 
of the former was, moreover, at variance with the “interne 
coloratiore” of the latter), that no naturalist, however erudite, 
could have successfully determined it upon sure grounds of 
credence. Hence, even had Linneus possessed a specimen 
(which he did not), no claim of priority could, with justice, be 
advanced from the mere circumstance of its preservation in 
his cabinet. I find no traditional knowledge of it in any of 
the older writers; nor have I gleaned any additional par- 
ticulars in the works of Miiller, Chemnitz, Schréter, Gmelin, 
Dillwyn, &e. 
Helix pevbersa, 
No specimen in the Linnean cabinet corresponds with the 
description of this shell, which, thanks to the description in 
the ‘Museum Ulrice,’ has long been identified as the Bulimus 
perversus (Pfeif. Monog. Helic. ii. p. 37). Those conchologists 
who may not be willing to permit so great a latitude of varia- 
tion to the species, can restrict the application of the Linnean 
epithet to the var. a of that work (Bul. citrinus, var. a of 
Lamarck), since of the cited figures those only (Gualt. pl. 5, 
f. P.—Argenv. pl. 12, f. G.) which represent that shell exhibit 
the characters (“contraria, sulphurea”’) required by the original 
diagnosis in the tenth edition of the ‘ Systema.’ 
Helix Lanthina. 
In the box marked as containing this species in the Linnean 
cabinet are specimens of an Janthina (Encyclop. Méthod. Vers, 
pl. 456, f. 1), which is probably identical with the I. communis 
of Lamarck, but has the spire more elevated than in the 
majority of figures supposed to represent that species. This, 
moreover, is the Ianthina indicated by the synonymy of the 
‘Systema,’ in which the following errors exist: Bonanni’s un- 
coloured drawing, although suggestive of the species in shape, 
evidently was not intended for any member of the genus, since 
