Limax maximus, Z., and its Variety ciiierco-nigcr, Wolf. 425 



into the question of affinities, and with the help of figures to 

 give a more exact account of the development of the bodily 

 form, of which the above is only a cursory sketch, as well as 

 of the organogeny. 



LIU. — Limax maximus, X., and its Variety cinerco-niger, 

 Wolf. By Walter E. Collinge, Demonstrator of 

 Biology in Mason College, Birmingham. 



As there seems to be a general misunderstanding as to what 

 the L. cinereo-niger of Wolf really is, notwithstanding a 

 number of important papers that have been written upon its 

 anatomy &c., and having had the opportunity of examining 

 a series of British examples, I desire to make a few remarks 

 upon the same, from which it will be evident that this slug is 

 simply one of the many colour-variations of the well-known 

 L. maximus^ L. It is the more important that this should be 

 done as Mr. Roebuck * has stated that " it \_L. cinereo-niger'] 

 is now separated by the best continental authorities " and 

 " that there are also important differences between the two 

 species in the genital apparatus." It is upon this statement 

 that its right to rank as a species is based in this country. 

 Now it is to be greatly regretted that Mr. Roebuck has never 

 thought it worth while to point out %\\q.9,q important differences 

 in the genital apparatus, for Simroth f , who has described 

 the anatomy, fails to see any difference in it from L. maxi- 

 mus. l)r. tScharffJ, who has still more recently examined 

 the anatomy, says, " I found no difference anatomically 

 between it and a typical L. maximus^ except in the origin of 

 the retractor muscle of the penis "§. 



In face of these statements, to which I have quite recently 

 drawn Mr. Roebuck's attention, he still || classes it as a 

 species, adding a note to the effect " that it is at least 

 entitled to subspecific rank," its external characters being 

 " so distinct and unmistakable," not a word being said as to 

 the previous-named important differences in the reproductive 

 organs. 



* Journ. Conch, vol. iv. p. ;}8 (1883-85). 



t Zoitsclir. f. wiss. Zool. vol. xlii. (1885). 



X Trans. Royal Dublin Soc. vol. iv. ser. 2, p. ol8 (1891). 



§ Variations in tlie point of the origin of thu retractor nmscles are one 

 of the comnionesl, and are met with in typical examples of all species uf 

 8lug.s. 



II .Jouru. L'oncli. vol. vii. (L'^Uli). 



