CANARIAN GROUP. 407 



that the H. Rosetti and phalerata, of Webb and Berthelot, are 

 one and the same species ; though I think it is more probable 

 that the former, which they expressly ascribe to Grand Ca- 

 nary, was founded on a small state of the nearly-allied H. tumu- 

 lorum, which seems to be peculiar to that island. At any rate, 

 whatever they intended to indicate by their ' H. Rosettij it 

 is not the H. Rozeti (mis-spelt by them '■Rosetti'') of Michaud, 

 as they would imply, — that species being an Algerian one, and 

 distinct. 



Unless I am much mistaken, the H. 'phalerata is strictly 

 confined to Teneriffe ; and I think it safer therefore to omit 

 Palma as a habitat, even though recorded by Mousson, — feel- 

 ing it exceedingly likely that Fritsch's example (or examples) 

 was but the closely resembling H. persimilis (so common in 

 that island) under perhaps a rather larger and more fasciated 

 guise. In Teneriffe, however, the phalerata proper was found 

 abundantly by Mr. Lowe and myself, around Sta. Cruz (particu- 

 larly towards El Campo and in the Barranco del Passo Alto) ; 

 and it had previously been met with in the same district by 

 Webb and Berthelot, d'Orbigny, Blauner, Grasset, and Reiss. 



As lately mentioned, the II. phalerata is intimately con- 

 nected with the Grand Canarian H. tumulorum ; nevertheless 

 it is too distinct from it in many of its details, to be treated, I 

 think, as a local, or insular, modification of that species. Of 

 course it is possible that, in reality, this may be the case ; 

 nevertheless where the differential characters of two forms are 

 sufficiently and readily conspicuous, and intermediate connective 

 links are wanting, I cannot see what right we have to act on a 

 mere hypothesis and to reject what have been already published, 

 and recognized, as species. 



The H. phalerata is a very much smaller shell than the 

 tumulorum, with its upper, or spiral, band narrower and less 

 mottled or suffused, its sculpture is not quite so coarse, and its 

 keel is not only less prominent or acute but also free from the 

 slight scooping-out on either side which causes it to be so pro- 

 nounced in that species. Its spire too is more conical, or pointed ; 

 and the volutions are flatter, the keel not being traceable so far 

 up towards the apex, 



Helix persimilis. 



Helix persimilis, ShiUtl., Bern. Mitth. 141 (1852) 

 „ „ Pfeiff., Mon. Hel. iii. 129 (1853) 



„ „ Mouss., ScJuv. Denksch. xv. 134 (1857) 



„ „ Id., Faun. Mai. des Can. 40 (1872) 



„ praeposita, Id., l. c. 45 (1872) 



