IHSo.] PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 265 



Helix (Polygyra) cereolus Mulilfcld. 



Helix cereolus Muhlf., Berl. Mag., viii, p. 11, pi. 2, fig. 18, Jau., 1818. 



Helix plan orhula Lamarck, An. e. Vert., vi, part 2, p. 89, No. 86, 1822. Ed. 



Desbayes, vol. viii, p. 67, 1838. 

 Polygijra scptemvoha Say, .Jouru. Acad. Nat. Sci., I. p. 278, June, 1818. 

 Helix volroxis Parreyss (MSS.),Pfr. Syni., iii, p. oO, 1846. 

 Helix microdonia Deshayes, in F6i: Hist. Nat. Moll. Ter., p. 6, pi. 72, fig. 13, 



1839. 

 Helix pi aim Dnuker, in Phil. Abb. uud Bescbr, i, p. 7A, pi. iii, figs. 11, a.h.c. 



Oct., 1843. 

 Helix Carpenteriana B\ax\i[, Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. N. Y., viii, p. 137, 1858; Bin- 



ney, ). c., p. 284 {Polygyra). 

 Helix Febigeri Bland, Am. Journ. Couch., II, p. 373, pi. xxi, fig. 10,1866. Bin- 



uey, 1. c, p. 285 {Polygyra). 

 Helix deliivsceiis Shuttleworth, Pfr. Nomencl. Hel.,p. 109. 

 Helix polygyraia Pfr. (uon Biun.), Men. Hel. Viv., i, 409, 1848. 

 Helix cheilodon."Ssiy," Pfr. Nomencl. Hel., p. 109. (Ubi ?) 



Habitat. — Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana near the 

 sea ; Bermuda, Baliama Islands, but not in Cuba. 



This protean species has received many names and presents many 

 varieties, as well as. individual variations, which, were they constant, 

 would fairly be entitled to distinct names. After examining- many 

 specimens, most of them typically identified by Messrs. Binney, Bland, 

 and Lewis, I have come to the conclusion that neither the soft parts 

 nor the shell ofler such distinctions as should entitle these variations to 

 specific rank. All the various characters mentioned as distinctive in 

 the diagnosis of various authors, when a sufficient number of specimens 

 from a sufficient number of localities are comjiared, are seen to fade into 

 one another and leave no line of dema: kation. 1 do not wish to be 

 understood as criticising the labors of those who have worked with in- 

 sufficient material and have applied names to what seemed at the time to 

 be distinguishable and definable forms. It is one of the stages in the 

 progress of science which must be expected, and through which every 

 branch of systematic zoology has passed or is passing. Tlie revival of 

 science under the new light which modern research has thrown upon 

 it, the recognition that species are but terms of a more or less continu- 

 ous and interlaced series, and not sharply characterized individualities, 

 andthe investigation of changes concurrent with differences of environ- 

 ment and geographical distribution have altered the whole basis of 

 systematic zoology. The result at first seems chaotic, but the recogni- 

 tion of the state of things is the first step out of confusion. The so- 

 called "new school" conchologists of France find their way out by 

 naming every possible combination of variations, and, were the capacity 

 of the human memory without limit, this would be one way out of the 

 dilemma. Unfortunately this is not the case, and the probable result, 

 were the i)rocess carried to its conclusion in the whole field of mala- 

 cology, would be "confusion worse confounded." We should need end- 

 ^ss indices to the index. Specific names must always resemble the 



