338 Rev. Canon Norman's Revision 



types of which he had examined in the Cuminf^ian collection, 

 but that it was S. virescens, Morelet. Baudon (1. c.) replies 

 that Jeffreys's shells are not Moquin-Tandon's vitrea, which is 

 ii var. of putr IS, that they are not S. virescens, Morelet, with a 

 type of which he has compared them. He refers them to S. 

 stagnalis, Gassics, and figures two of Jeffreys's shells — that 

 from Grassmerc, which he considers typical, and that from 

 St. Albans, which he calls var. Jeffreysi. Judged by the 

 drawings of these two shells, it seems to be a case of distinc- 

 tion without a difference. However, we have at least a 

 certain name, and the British shells are S. stagnalis (Gassies), 

 Baudon. 



In the ' Annals ' Jeffreys referred his shell to S. dehilis^ 

 Baudon, from whom he had received specimens : it may be 

 supposed that these specimens were Baudon's var. viridula, 

 which would be colourless, like Jeffreys's own vitrea ; and it 

 appears to me that to distinguish Baudon's figure of that 

 variety in his original monograph (pi. ix. fig. 5) from his 

 subsequent figures of >S'. stac/nalis is hair-splitting indeed. 

 But Jeffreys also stated that, having examined Pfeiffer's (/. e. 

 Morelet's) type, he found that to be a different thing. How 

 so, I would ask, in anything but colour? 



It happens that in the collection of the late Dr. Tiberi, of 

 Naples, now a part of my own, 1 find two Succinexe labelled 

 ^'Succi. dehilis, Mori. Alger.," and two others labelled ^'Suc- 

 cinea pleuraulaca, Letour. Alger." This collection is re- 

 markably rich in types, and I have no doubt, although it is 

 not so stated, that these shells were received from the authors 

 whose names are attached to the species. These shells are 

 identical, pale horn-coloured, but differing slightly in depth of 

 tint, remarkable for their short spire, and are exactly repre- 

 sented by the figure in Baudon's original monograph as .SVof/zjea 

 dehilis, var. stagnalis, pi. ix. fig. 7. Now Morelet, in his 

 second Supplement, has removed from his original S. dcbilis 

 the varieties stagnalis and tuberculata, and elevated them to 

 a species under the first of these names. Turning to Wester- 

 lund we find S. jileuraulaca, Letour., given as a variety of US'. 

 imtris, and S. dehilis, Pfciffer, holding specific rank. 



With reference to Jeffreys's ('Annals') criticism on a 

 mistaken reference of Baudon to S. humilis as having bcL'U 

 described by Morelet, see Baudon (' Troisitme Suppl<§mont 

 }l la Mon. des Succinees Fran.^aises ' (1881), p. 12), where he 

 writes: — " Le nom de dehilis I'ote donni^ par M. ilorelet, et 

 rfeiffer deerivit l'esp^ee. J\I. ]\Lorelet me dit, ;\ ce sujet : ' Je 

 ii'ai jamais decrit cette coquillo. II y a vingt ans environ 

 que je donnai a Cuming, sous Ic nom de dcbilis, unc Ambrctte 



