345 



a difTeffion of both fexes of the animal in his Exerci- 

 tatio tab. i. where it is reprefented with two tentacula, 

 only, and the eyes placed at their bafe. The lame plate 

 is given in his Conchology tab. 4. Aval, and unfortunately 

 in thefe plates a figure is given of a comprelTed Helix 

 without explanation ; but which is evidently the fhell of 

 the animal figured at No. 4. in order to make a compa- 

 rative view of the organs of generation. The want of 

 fome explanation of the figure of that fliell has led to 

 error and confufion ; though he has exprefsly referred to 

 Tit. 5. of his Anim. Angltce for the proper fliell of the 

 anatomical figure of the Umax in queftion. 



Geoffroy, as well as Lister, was perfectly right 

 in crivincr the animal only two tentacula, and in makin? 

 it a land fpecies. 



The animal is of a pale brown colour, with a long 

 fnout, which is Rrongly flriated tranfverfely : tentacula, 

 two, fomewhat compreffed, wrinkled, and fub-clavated, 

 with fmooth, gloffy, black tips :* eyes placed clofe to 

 the bafe of the tentacula on the outfide, a little elevated. 



Y y The 



* It is perhaps to be doubted whether the fmooth glofly tips to the tenta- 

 cula are not really eyes, and as much defcrving the appellation, as thofe on 

 other fpecies of land Umax ; if fo, the animal is more effentially different from 

 all others of its fi9«fff«^ra, in poneffing four fuch organs. Why Lister 

 Ihould not have confidered thefe fub-globular, highly polifhed extremities, as 

 much the eyes as thofe placed at the bafe, is not to be determined : but if he 

 was led to conclude they could not be fuch, becaufe they were not internally 

 retraftile, or capable of being drawn within the tentacula ; it is certainly not 

 a fufficient reafon : for it Ihoujd rather be confidered, that as the tentacula arc 



