ON SOME VARIATIONS IN HELIX ARBUSTORUM. 418 
without its being necessary to distinguish each one by a different 
varietal or ‘‘ monstral”’ name.* It should be enough to record 
their existence, and that of such variations as are more or less 
specific, 7. e., those of colour, markings, &c. In short, I would 
advocate the adoption of the method followed by Gray, whose 
descriptiont of the variations of this species when emended and 
brought up to date would read as follows :— 
The shell of Helix arbustorum varies—1. In colour: (a) The 
ground tint ranges from pale yellowish white through a brownish 
tawny to red-brown and almost brown-black; whilst a greenish 
tinge at times prevails over these. More rarely it is olive-green. 
One specimen has been recorded of a violet colour. Albinism is 
not uncommon. (b) The frecklings are sometimes partially, 
sometimes altogether, white. 
2. In markings: Sometimes the spiral band, at others the 
frecklings, and sometimes both, are wanting. The band varies 
also in strength of colour and a little in width. 
3. In thickness: Some specimens being exceptionally solid ; 
whilst examples from elevated situations, where lime is scarce, 
are exceedingly thin and transparent. (These “starved ” forms 
are frequently devoid of all markings.) 
4. In size: According, as the surroundings of its locality are 
exceptionally favourable, or the reverse, to its development. 
5. In shape: According as the whorls are a little more or a 
little less tightly coiled. 
6. Variations due to combinations of the foregoing. 
It is sometimes distorted—(1), the spire is more or less 
elevated or depressed ; (2), reversed examples are met with at 
times ; and (3), very rarely it is scalariform (i. ¢., the spire is 
elevated and the whorls separated). 
Such a summary, when properly annotated and supplemented 
by more detailed mention of remarkable examples, especially 
those forms which have at any time been described and regarded 
as distinct species, would, I contend, be amply sufficient for all 
purposes, save that perhaps of the amateur conchologist, who 
wants to expand the catalogue of a scanty collection into a 
formidable list of names. 
*T am glad to see that this is in part admitted by Mr. T. D. A. Cockerell, 
even whilst coining fresh ones (see Sci. Goss. 1885, pp. 179—80). 
+ Op. cit., p. 188. 
