264 On Helix rufesceus of Pennant. 



Since Pennant's death his collection has remained at 

 Downing Hall, Holywell, Flintshire, where he resided all 

 liis life, from 1726 to 1798. The property subseqnently 

 came into tiie possession of the Denbigh family, and it is the 

 present Earl of Denbigh to whom the Museum is indebted 

 for the specimens here referred to. 



It now becomes necessary to determine what name must 

 be assigned to the Helix rufescens of authors. 



It certainly is the Helix turluram of Gmelin * in part, 

 since he quotes the reference to Lister, but his other refer- 

 ences to Schlotterbeck and Martini have nothing to do with 

 the Listerian shell. In Gmelin's diagnosis the word rotun- 

 clata occurs, which is applicable to the figures of Schlotterbeck 

 and Martini, and even to that of Lister, which is drawn 

 sinistral, and might be described as rotundata, for it resembles 

 very little the shell (rufesceus, auct.j which he evidently had 

 before him. 



Considering the confusion surrounding Gmelin's Helix 

 turturum, I am inclined to disregard it entirely. 



Helix circinata, H. montana, and H. ccelata, described very 

 briefly (but not figured) by Studer in 1820 1, are said to be 

 the same as rufesceus, auct., but from the very short descrip- 

 tions they ai-e certainly not identifiable. Subsequently, in 

 1828, Carl PfeifEer united montana and circinata, and the 

 shell he described and figured % is evidently the same as the 

 British species. I would therefore suggest that the shell in 

 question should at present § bear the name of Hygromia inon- 

 tana (Studer), Pfeiffer. Helix striolata, C. Pfeiffer, is appa- 

 rently a synonym, and although the description of it appeared 

 on p. 28, and that of montana on p. 33 of the same work, I 

 prefer to suggest tlie adoption of the latter name, since it was 

 proposed by Studer eigiit years before the appearance of 

 Pfeiffer's book. 



The Helix corrugata, Hartmann, with tlie varieties 

 clandestina, corrugata, ccelata, and charpentieri, described and 

 figured in the * Neue Alpina,' 1821, vol. i. p. 236, are not 

 identifiable with certainty from Hartmann^s description and 

 the figure of the var. ccelata^ and therefore cannot be considered 

 as antedating the H. montana properly established in 1828. 



• Syst. Nat. 5. 36-39. 



t Syst. Verzeich. Schweizer-Couch. p. 12. 



X Naturgesch. Land- und Siisswasser Moll. Abtheil. iii. p, 3-3, pi. vi. 

 fig. 9 (lig. 10 by mistake in text, see p. 53). 



§ Should H. glabella of Draparnaud eventually prove to be the same 

 species, as is stated to be the case by some authors, that name should be 

 retained instead of montana. 



