40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



and the use made of Xerophila ^ ', but discussion of these and other 

 cases may be deferred for the present, as the object of this com- 

 munication is to testify on behalf of Helicella and Polita. 



[Postscript received since the foregoing paper was read, revoking 

 the acceptance of Petasina in lieu of Euconulus : — ] 



Gude and Woodward substitute Petasina Beck, 1847, for Econulus 

 Reinh., naming Helix fulva Miill. as type of the former, because 

 that species has been selected as type of Petasia Beck, 1837. They 

 assume that Beck proposed Petasina as a substitute for Petasia, 

 hence it should have the same type. This is pure inference, since 

 Beck does not mention his former name. However plausible 

 such an inference may be thought, it does not place the name on 

 the same basis with one stated to be offered as a substitute. Petasina 

 has to be viewed like any other newly proposed generic group, and 

 its type determined in the same way. So far as I know, the first 

 type selection was that of Gude, 1911, who selected Zfeli'x edentula, 

 Drap. (Proc. Malac. Soc. London, ix, p. 362). This type will hold ; 

 it cannot now be ignored. It is therefore proposed to retain 

 Euconulus for the group of Helix fulva. 



1 The type of Xerophila, according to Herrmannsen, March, 1849, is Helix 

 pisana, Miill. The name had better be forgotten in the Helicella association, 

 as I concluded on other grounds in 1895. Xerophila is prior to Euparypha. 



