KENNAED & WOODWARD : ON THE CLAUSILIID^. 301 



year when lie discussed the contents of Draparnaud's cabinet {Ipsa 

 Draparnaicdi Conckilia, 1895, p. 93) Locard was only able to find 

 therein one of the three forms, which he identified with the typical 

 one, and said that Bourguignat's description of it was very good. 

 Although the forms (3 and 7 were not present he had no hesitation 

 in referring them to nigricans and 23(^'>'vula respectively. 



Having been kindly favoured by Comm. Caziot with specimens of 

 rugosa and nigricans as understood on the continent, and by 

 Mr. W. J. Wintle with a large quantity, collected at Caldey, of 

 rugosa as we understand it, we have come to the conclusion that 

 Ferussac was correct and that the nigricans of Maton and Rackett 

 is identical with the rugosa of Draparnaud, of which the rugosa of 

 our continental confreres and even the crenulata of Risso are extreme 

 varieties (this was also the opinion of Dr. Boettger, 17. & 18. Ber. 

 Offenbach. Ver. Naturk., 1878, p. 71), while Draparnaud's var. /3 

 was in all probability identical with parvula of Studer, the var. 7 

 being indeterminate. 



CI. rugosa, Drap., being the type reduces the PlicapJwra of 

 Hartmann (1844:) = Pyrostoma of Vest (1867) to a synonym for 

 Clausilia, s.s. ; while, on the other hand, it restores Marjoessa of 

 Gray. (1821) to generic rank. 



Hartmann's names, which are perfectly valid, have been strangely 

 set aside by the authorities. In addition to Plicaphora {Er'd- cfi 

 Sicssw. Gasterop)., p. 216, 18M) monotype CI. plicatula, Drap., we 

 find on the same page, Laciniaria monotype CI. plicata, Drap., that 

 has precedence of H. and A. Adams' Alinda {Genera Moll., ii, p. 182, 

 1855) and must replace it. 



Dr. A. Wagner, basing his conclusions not only on the shell, but 

 more particularly on the radula and genitalia (the clausium and 

 its accompanying apparatus proving unreliable), proposed an 

 entirely new classification in 1913 (Rossmassler's Icon., N.F., xxi). 

 This after the publication of a paper by Frankenberg in 1916 

 {Zool. Anz., xlvii, pp. 221-36) he considerably modified in 1920-1 

 {Nachrbl. Deutsch. Malak. Gesell., and its continuation, ArcJiiv f. 

 MollusJcenkunde, li, lii), and not improbably will have to still 

 further alter with increasing knowledge. Still, his scheme will 

 doubtless be in the main adopted by malacologists, although, to 

 take one instance, his proposal to degrade Balea to a subgenus of 

 Alinda (i.e. Laciniaria), however correct on anatomical grounds 

 alone, is not likely to prove acceptable to systematists, quite apart 

 from the fact that Balea being the older name would in that case 

 have to stand for the genus. Nor will systematists be willing to 

 adopt all his new names, which, as common with most anatomists, 

 he has often introduced regardless of the prior claims of predecessors. 

 Fortunately he has not designated types so that we are hence enabled 

 by supplying his omission to redress where necessary the wrong done. 



Neoserbica, Wagner {Nachrbl., li, p. 135), established to include 



