THE NAUTILUS. / 



will probably prove to be varieties o{ nehulosa or carolinensis, but they have not 

 yet been identified. 



Limacella dorsalis (Binney). 



Philomycus dorsalis, Binney, Bost. Journ. Nat. Hist. 1842, iv. 174. 

 Pallifera dorsalis, Morse, Journ. Portl. Soc. 1864. 

 N. E. United States. Jaw ribbed. 



Limacella Wftherbyi (W. G. Binney). 



Pallifera Wetherbyi, W. G. Binney, .\nn. Lye. of Nat. Hist, of New York, 

 1874, xi. 31, pi. ii. figs. 1, 2. 

 Kentucky. Jaw ribbed. 



Limacella ILeiitphilli (W. G. Binney). 



Tehennorpkorus Hempkilli, W. G. Binney, Man. Amer. Land-Shells, 1885, p. 

 247; Third Suppl. Terr. Moll. U. S. 1890, pi. vi. fig. H. 

 Georgia and North Carolina. Jaw ribbed. 



Article II. {Ami. and Mag. N. H., Feb., 1891.) 



Critical Notes on the Genus Tebennophorus and the recent literature relating to 

 it. By Henry A. Pilsbry, Conservator of the Conchological Section, Academy 

 of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 



The slugs of this genus have been commented upon lately by a numbei of 

 English and continental authors, who have arrived at very different results, it has 

 occurred to the writer that a presentation of the subject by one who has studied 

 the species in their native forests would not be without interest. 



Firstly, regarding the proper name for the genus. We will consider the several 

 designations in the order of their publication. 



In 1817 Blainville proposed a genus Limacella with the following characters: 



" Body limaciform, entirely naked, provided with a foot as wide as itself, but 

 separated by a groove. 



" Orifices of the organs of generation widely separated and communicating be- 

 tween each other by a furrow which occupies the entire right margin of the body." 



Blainville refers to his plate ii. fig v, illustrating the type species, L. lactiformis. 



A moment's reflection will convince any competent malacologist that the above 

 description does not indicate Tebennophorus, a slug in which the genital organs 

 have acommon outlet. It cannot be supposed that Blainville has made a mistake 

 in observation, because in the same paper he describes at length the external 

 anatomy of Veronicella, and correctly locates the orifices. The figure given is 

 equally non-committal ; so much so that Mr. Cockerell (who supposes Limacella 

 to equal Tebe?mophorus) really cites " figures 4, 5 " instead of 5 only* — his inabil- 

 ity to tell Blainville's figure of Limacella (fig. 5) from that of Veronicella (fig. 4) 



•■■ That this is not mere inadvertence on Mr. Cockerell's part is demonstrated by his 

 remarks on Blainville's fig. 4 on p. 3S0 of the ' Annals ' for November, 1890. 



