KENNAKD & WOODWARD : NOMBNCLATORIAL NOTES. 81 



allowed to lapse on account of ambiguity/ and favoured a return to 

 Miiller's name of acuta for the British species ; and it is still our 

 opinion, as it was that of Dillwyn (Cat. Shells, ii, 1817, p. 956), 

 that this is correct. 



Considerable controversy raged in the past as to the correct use 

 of Miiller's name, and to judge from a quite recent memoir divergent 

 views still persist, so that it seems desirable to review the question 

 yet once again in the light of modern zoological rules and 

 requirements. 



By way of prelude it is necessary to refer to certain cited figures 

 on the interpretation of which a good deal depends. Lister, in 

 his " Historise sive Synopsis methodicse Conchyliorum ", on pi. xix, 

 fig. 14, gave an unmistakable representation of our British species, 

 naming as localities : " Gall. nar. [= south-eastern France] 

 Aldernensi Insula. A. [= Anglia]. Wallia. Fiord." Then there 

 are three sets of figures on pi. iv of Gualtieri's " Index Testarum 

 Conchyliorum". Of these "I" manifestly represent the English 

 shell, " L " a shell with a strongly marked lip that can have nothing 

 in common mth ours, and " N " a pair that might be held to repre- 

 sent young and rather tumid examples of " I ", but do not resemble 

 in shape or proportions the Bulimus ventricostts of Draparnaud. 



Miiller, in his " Vermium Historia ", ii, 1774, p. 100, gave all too 

 brief diagnosis of his Helix acuta, but he cited Gualtieri's fig. " N " 

 and Lister's fig. 14. This last, with the dimensions " long. 4 lin. 

 lat. 1^ lin.", in our opinion, determines his species to be the form 

 that has so long borne the name. Gmelin in 1791 (Linn. Syst. Nat., 

 ed. 13, i, pt. 6, p. 3660) merely followed Miiller. 



Bruguiere next, in 1789 (Ency. method.. Vers, i, p. 323), trans^- 

 ferred Miiller's species to the genus Bulimus. He cited Lister's 

 fig. 14 and all three, I, L, N, of Gualtieri ; at the same time he 

 gave as synonym the Turbo fasciatus of Pennant, and this with his 

 dimensions, " Sa longueur est de quatre lignes et demie, et sa 

 largeur au bas est du moitie moindre," showed that he, too, had the 

 same shell in mind as Miiller. 



^ Chemnitz (Syst. Conch. Cat., vol. ix, 1786, p. 190) suggested its identity 

 with his Helix cretacea, etc. (pi. cxxxvi, f. 1263, Nos. 1-4), to which Gmelin 

 afterwards (Linn. Syst. Nat., ed. 13, i, pt. vi, 1791, p. 3655) gave the name 

 Helix carinula. Potiez & Michaud (Galerie Moll., i, 1838, p. 144) query 

 its identity with their Bulimus hieroglyphicus, and this is quoted by Beck 

 (Index Moll., 1837, p. 63). Pfeiiier (Mon. Helic. viv., ii, 1848, p. 124) placed 

 Bulimus barbarus, Linn., next to B. obscurus and gave as synonyms B. 

 jeannoti, Terv., and B. terverii, Forb. Later, however (op. cit., vi, p. 63), 

 he made B. jeannoti the species. Menke, who discussed the whole question 

 in 1845 (Zeitschr. f. Malak., 1845, pp. 29-30), pointed out that hieroglyphicus 

 had nothing in common with jeannoti, and concluded that while it might be 

 assumed with confidence that Helix barbara, Linn., was a Bulimus, the species 

 was yet doubtful ; and that it was desirable that conchologists who in future 

 might have more abundant Algerian material should not lose sight of the 

 opportunity of solving the question. 



