264 ABIDA. 



ture, on account of prior use of the same names in connection 

 with other species of "Pupa." I have rarely attempted to 

 rectify the usage, because whoever thoroughly revises the sub- 

 specific forms zoologically ought to have a free hand with 

 their nomenclature. Otherwise there will be further accre- 

 tions to the already colossal synonymy. 



The impression may be ventured that the forms described 

 by Bofill and Fagot are mainly valid as species or races, while 

 most of those of Locard have little value, or are practically 

 synonyms. Bourguignat's work on the group is of very un- 

 equal value. 



Much of the literature of the Pupillidae of southern Europe 

 is inadequate, either in description, in comparisons with fig- 

 ured species, in knowledge of previous work, or especially in 

 lacking illustrations. The carelessness and incompetence of 

 some authors are appalling. Yet there has been much excel- 

 lent work also. Draparnaud laid a sure foundation. Kiister, 

 and especially Rossmassler in Germany, Moquin-Tandon in 

 France, built with consummate workmanship. Of late years, 

 Commandant Caziot and M. Margier have studied the distri- 

 bution and synonymy of many species with excellent results; 

 and there are many minor papers by other authors which it is 

 a pleasure to use. 



Radula. 



The dentition has been investigated chiefly by Rev. Prof. 

 Gwatkin, Proc. Malac. Soc. London, iii, p. 227. He gives the 

 following list of species having the normal type of teeth : 



affinis Rm. muhlfeldii Kiister. 



avenacea Brug. nana 



braunii Rm. pachygastra Ziegl. 



cinerea Dr. partioti Moq.-Tand. 



clausilioides Boub. rhodia Roth 



frumentum Drap. secalina Marts, 



montserratica Fag. variabilis Drap. 



Some of the specimens supplied to Prof. Gwatkin must have 

 been identified incorrectly. Thus, avenacea and cinerea (under 



