90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



insertion of the "Lam." was a "printer's error", a supposition 

 which, the setting under fasciata tends to confirm. 



C. PfeifEer (1821), Lamarck (1822), Turton (1831 and 1840), 

 Brown (1837-M and 1845), all followed Draparnaud's figures in 

 their nomenclature, and the correct allocation of the species was 

 not restored till Forbes & Hanley (1850) did so more by accident, 

 as their synonymy shows, than by design. Their vivipara corre- 

 sponded to Linne's, but, unaware of Millet's work, they proposed 

 the trivial name of listen for the other species. Moquin-Tandon 

 followed on the lines of Forbes & Hanley, but employed Millet's 

 name of contectum in lieu of listen, and this arrangement was 

 conformed to by Jeffreys and Reeve, and continued by later writers 

 down to quite recent times. Only Bourguignat in 1862 (Rev. & 

 Mag. Zool., 1862, pp. 110-112) confused the species and synonymy. 



Locard, in his " Ipsa Draparnaudi Conchylia " (1897) detected 

 the discrepancy between Draparnaud's text and figure in the case of 

 " Cyclostoma achatinum ", but misled as to the " Nerita vivipara " 

 of Miiller and its identity with Linne's Helix vivipara, failed to 

 realize the true solution, as we think, of the confusion. 



