cinereo-niger, Wolf, o/Limax maxiinus, L. 287 



cnly malacologists I can call to mind wlio use it to-day are 

 Binnej and Pollonera, and both give it quite a secondary- 

 place. I therefore am of opinion that, from a consideration 

 of its development and variation, it is absolutely useless for 

 specific or generic distinction. 



Respecting the reproductive organs, I regret Mr. Roebuck 

 has not a knowledge from personal examination. Accurate 

 as Mr. Ashford's drawings may be — and I see no cause to 

 doubt the particulars given — personal observation of the 

 reproductive organs of a few slugs would, I think, at least 

 have shown him that to separate species of slugs upon any 

 single system is unsafe, if not unscientific. My contention is 

 that the general anatomy — the reproductive, nervous, diges- 

 tive, and muscular systems — of cinereo-niger is the same as 

 that of L. maximus. All who have had any experience in 

 the anatomical examination of the Mollusca know the endless 

 minor variations that occur in the form, size, and colour of 

 the reproductive organs, according to age, season, habitat, &c. 

 I'he writings of Simroth, Lessona, Pollonera, ScharfF, Jour- 

 dain, Binney, and others will bear out my statement. It is 

 therefore needless for me to dwell upon these slight variations 

 Mr. Roebuck has seen in Mr. Ashford's drawings. 



I have frequently of late dwelt upon the external variations 

 of the slugs in form and colour, and I was careful to point 

 out that I agreed with Jourdain that species could not be 

 founded or separated from each other upon these minor 

 differences. Mr. Roebuck says he has examined " by far the 

 greater proportion of British specimens known " ; and yet it 

 seems to me that he is still ignorant of very many of the 

 variations to which L, maximus is subject. Seeing that the 

 actual published records of cinereo-niger are but few, I can 

 only regard his statements re variation as founded upon an 

 insufficient knowledge of the subject. Personally I have 

 only seen about one hundred examples of cinereo-niger and 

 some seven or eight hundred of L. maxiinus, most of which I 

 have subjected to a careful examination, and many anatomi- 

 cally. Amongst these I have met with both L. maximus and 

 its variety cinereo-niger with the marblings on the mantle 

 and with a white foot-sole also. 



In conclusion, I fail to see any points which are of suffi- 

 cient importance to establish the specific identity of cinereo- 

 niger, and until such are shown to exist 1 shall, with the 

 above-mentioned malacologists, continue to regard it as a 

 variety of L. maximus. 



2V 



