.Mr. T. I>. A. Cockcicll on Australian Shtgs. 371 



I refer to the limited ])f)\vers of iiiinratioii aiiion^ slti;i;.s the 

 natural ineniis only arc intended. It is notorious that these 

 are cjctrcmdi) limited. I f^ive many instances of slugs being 

 carried long distances (from Enrojic to St. Helena, New 

 Zealand, &c., for example) by arlificinl means. Also it may 

 be observed that many species of shell-bearing mollusks 

 have been carried quite as far ; there is a whole crop of 

 synojiynis originating in European species taken to the 

 antij)odes. 



(4). Mr. Ilcdley is of the opinion that Aneitea Graeffei^ 

 Krejfii, and Schutei are one species. Any one may see by 

 reading my paper that I doubted their distinctness : I say, 

 " Probably the number of species will be considerably reduced 

 when they are better known." Excellent authorities have 

 considered them distinct, and I did not feel justified, with the 

 material I had, in lumping them. The differences I observed 

 were not those between living and preserved specimens, but 

 between specimens preserved in exactly the same way, and 

 the alteration due to contraction &c., being a common factor, 

 need not seriously interfere. 



(5). Antitca Macdoiuddi was named by Gray, who had 

 New-Caledonian specimens ; he supposed these the same as 

 Macdonald's unnamed slug from Aneiteum, but it has been 

 since doubted whether this was the case. (As to this matter 

 and the distinction of T. Krefti from its allies, see Mr. E. A. 

 Smith, P. Z. S. 1884, p. 273.) 



(6). Eighteen species of IleJicarion are on record from 

 Australia; I do not say they are all distinct, but I am not in 

 a position to reduce the number with certainty. When they 

 have been sJiown to be less than eight in a satisfactory 

 maimer, it will be time enough to alter the statistics. 



(7). I did not say that Semper had not placed //. Cumingi 

 in Xesta. My point simply was that certain species, usually 

 placed in Helicariou, might be se])arated from it, at least sub- 

 generically. It was not within the scope of my paper to go 

 into further details, especially as the present state of know- 

 ledge does not allow any ap|)roximately final subdivision to 

 be made. 



(8). I quoted Parmella as a slug-like genus which is 

 referred by authors to the Vitrina-^von^. I had " grave 

 doubts " myself, but could not go into the details of the 

 matter without unduly enlarging my pa])er. 



(9). I placed Cystopelta on the characters given by Tate, 

 who described it. Mr. Hedley examined a species, possibly 

 not the same as Tate's, found in Australia, and arrived at 

 difierent conclusions. Admitting the weight of his remarks. 



