338 Rev. Canon Norman^s Revision 



types of which he had examined in the Cumingian collection, 

 but that it was 8. vii-escens, Morelet. Baudon (I. c.) replies 

 that Jeffreys's shells are not Moquin-Tandon's vitrea, which is 

 nysiY.of putrisj that they are not 8. virescens, Morelet, with a 

 type of which he has compared them. He refers them to S. 

 stagnalis, Gassies, and figures two of Jeffreys's shells — that 

 from Grassmere, which he considers typical, and that from 

 St. Albans, which he calls var. Jeffrey si. Judged by the 

 drawings of these two shells, it seems to be a case of distinc- 

 tion without a difference. However, we have at least a 

 certain name, and the British shells are 8. stagnalis (Gassies), 

 Baudon. 



In the ' Annals ' Jeffreys referred his shell to 8. dehilis^ 

 Baudon, from whom he had received specimens : it may be 

 supposed that these specimens were Baudon's var. viridula^ 

 which would be colourless, like Jeffreys's own vitrea ; and it 

 appears to me that to distinguish Baudon's figure of that 

 variety in his original monograph (pi. ix. fig. 5) from his 

 subsequent figures of 8. stagnalis is hair-splitting indeed. 

 But Jeffreys also stated that, having examined Pfeiffer's (^. e. 

 Morelet's) type, he found that to be a different thing. How 

 so, I would ask, in anything but colour? 



It happens that in the collection of the late Dr. Tiberi, of 

 Naples, now a part of my own, I find two 8uccineai labelled 

 ''Sued, debilis, Mori. Alger.," and two others labelled "/S'mc- 

 citiea jjleuraulaca, Letour. Alger." This collection is re- 

 markably rich in types, and I have no doubt, although it is 

 not so stated, that these shells were received from the authors 

 whose names are attached to the species. These shells are 

 identical, pale horn-coloured, but differing slightly in depth of 

 tint, remarkable for their short spire, and are exactly repre- 

 sented by the figure in Baudon's original monograph as Succinea 

 dehilis^ var. stagnalis^ pi. ix. fig. 7. Now Morelet, in his 

 second Supplement, has removed from his original 8. debilis 

 the varieties stagnalis and tuherculata, and elevated them to 

 a species under the first of these names. Turning to Wester- 

 lund we find >S'. pleuraulaca, Letour., given as a variety of 8. 

 putris, and 8. debilis, Pfeiffer, holding specific rank. 



With reference to Jeffreys's (' Annals ') criticism on a 

 mistaken reference of Baudon to 8. humilis as having been 

 described by Morelet, see Baudon (' Troisi^me Supplement 

 a la Mon. des Succinics Fran^aises ' (1881), p. 12), where he 

 writes : — " Le nom de debilis I'et^ donn^ par M. Morelet, et 

 Pfeifter decrivit I'esp^ce. M. Morelet me dit, a ce sujet : * Je 

 n'ai jamais decrit cette coquille. H y a vingt ans environ 

 que je donnai a Cuming, sous le nom de debilis^ uue Ambrette 



