388 SPECIES OF THE SYSTEMA. 
gruity, the alleged likeness in form, as it reads in the second 
edition of the ‘ Fauna,’ of the elongated H. fragilis (No. 2187), 
and the depressed nemoralis (No. 2186), whereas the similarity 
alluded to is that existing between the former (No. 1311 of 
ed. 1) and H. stagnalis (No. 1310 of ed. 1). What possibly may 
have prevented the universal recognition of H. tentaculata was 
the strange and unaccountable reference, in the last issue of the 
‘Systema,’ to figures of the Monodonta fragaroides and allied 
species (“ List. Conch. 642, f. 33 —35.—Klein. Ost. t. 2, f. 53, 54. 
—Adanson, Seneg. i. pl. 12, f. 1”), which bear not the slightest 
resemblance to the shell described. 
Helix auvicularta, 
The Limneus auricularius (Draparnaud, Moll. France, pl. 2, 
f. 28, 29) is the sole shell in the Linnean collection which 
strictly agrees with both the figures and descriptions of this 
species; hence, as our author has recorded his possession of 
examples, no doubt of the typical authority of the specimens 
can be entertained, The LZ. ovatus (Drap.), an allied congener, 
which in certain of its forms so closely resembles awricularius 
that it is almost impossible to determine the limits of the two, 
is likewise to be found in the cabinet, but the individual 
specimen there present is so characteristic that the spire is of 
moderate length, and the mouth but little expanded. Hence it 
was not likely to have been confounded (?) by our author with 
a species distinguished by a “spira brevissima — aperture 
margo reflexus” (F.§.). The reference to Klein must be ex- 
punged from the synonymy, since his figure was copied from 
a drawing in Lister (Conch. pl. 123, f. 121) that had been 
previously and more correctly cited by Linneus for his H. 
stagnalis. 
Helix lebiqata. 
Notwithstanding that Schréter, Miiller, Gmelin, and the 
other more ancient conchologists have not ventured to identify 
