•^ "7 O 



This fpecies has been greatly confounded with its con- 

 geners, H. peregra, and the young of //. auricularia, 

 but is at once diftinguidied by its tranfparency, and by 

 the form of the body volution, %v'hich is very little fuel- 

 led, and tapers to the fecond fpire without any promi- 

 nency at the junftion; and the divifion, or feparating 

 line, runs much more oblique : it is never covered with 

 an epidermis, and is more flender in proportion to its 

 length. 



Chemnitz has given a tolerable good figure of 

 this fhell, and quotes the H. putris of Linn.£us ; and 

 Gmelin quotes Chemnitz's figure for \\\5 puiris. 



Da Costa's defcription feems to anfwcr tolerably well 

 for this fhell, but his figure is more like H. peregra, and' 

 he has quoted Mr. Pennant's H. putris, which is cer- 

 tainly that fhell, not only in figure, but is defcribed to 

 inhabit ponds. 



The animal of this has four tenlacula, fituated like 

 the generality of land lir,iaces, two long and two (hort ; 

 and the eyes are placed on the top of the longeft ;* thefe 



tentaciLia 



* It is more fully dated in another place that the aquatic fpecies oi limaxy, 

 or fuch as can exifl under water, are invariably poficffed of two ter.tacula only, 

 and thofe deflitute of eyes at their tips. LinnjEus, as well as Gmelin, par- 

 ticularly remarks, that the animal of H. putris has four tentacula ; a character 

 fufficiciit to determine all controvcrfy, for none of the animal inhabitants o£ 

 the other fhells hitherto confounded with tlii-, have more than two tentacula^ 

 and ihofe diFering in fiiape. 



