116 TESTACEA ATLANTICA. 



more typical (or larger) one occurs. Still, I will not attempt 

 to do more than record my belief thus far; but will only men- 

 tion that the H. armillata (as understood by Mr. Lowe) seems 

 to differ from the caperata proper, merely, in its smaller size 

 and altogether somewhat more depressed form, and in its umbi- 

 licus being relatively a trifle larger. Beyond these points 

 (which appear almost equally to characterize the ordinary 

 smaller phasis, as universally understood, of the H. caperata), I 

 can detect nothing even tending towards a specific difference. 



The H. armillata is locally common in certain dry and 

 sunny spots, generally of a low altitude, around Funchal. It 

 was first discovered by Mr. Lowe, on Jan. 21, 1830, in a 

 garden near the Mount road (and it has lately been found by 

 Mr. J. Y. Johnson in almost the same spot) ; and it was after- 

 wards met with by Mr. Leacock (during September 1847) both 

 to the east and to the west of the town. Since which time, 

 however, it has been obtained in much greater numbers by 

 Mr. Leacock, the Baron Paiva, Mr. Watson, myself, and others 

 on and around the Pico da Cruz, as well as near the Gor- 

 gulho and elsewhere. 



The H. armillata occurs likewise at the Azores, and it has 

 been recorded lately by Morelet from the Cape Verde archi- 

 pelago, where it is stated to have been found, by MM. Bouvier 

 and de Cessac, in S. Vicente. And since I myself possess it 

 from Mogador, on the coast of Morocco, it would appear to 

 have a tolerably wide geographical range. 1 



( Plebeoula, Lowe.) 



Helix vulgata. 



Helix nitidiuscula, Lowe [nee Sow., 1824], Cambr. Phil. 



S. Trans, iv. 52. t. 6. f. 6 (1831) 

 Pfeiff. [nee Sow.'], Mon. Hel. i. 196 



(1848) 



vulgata, Lowe, Ann. Nat. Hist. ix. (1852) 

 canicalensis, Id., ibid. (1852) 



vulgata, var. a. trifasciata, et var. /3. canicalensis, Id., 

 Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 173 (1854) 



1 The H. ewmceus, Lowe (Proc. Linn. Soc. Land., Sect. Zool., 198 ; 1860), 

 described from examples taken at Mogador (and which seem to differ in no 

 respect from others which have been met with subsequently by Mr. T. Black- 

 more at Tangier), appears to me to be absolutely conspecific with the armil- 

 lata, the few characters alluded to in the diagnosis which are supposed to 

 be differential being (with the exception perhaps of the appreciably stronger 

 costae of the Morocco shell) scarcely more than imaginary. The If. Irus, 

 however, of Lowe, is totally distinct, approaching closely, except in sculpture, 

 to the H. apicina, Lam. 



