340 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. II, NO. II, JULY, I906. 



, V. cristatay]//'///^?'. — (i) Great Ashfield, Knettishall. (2) Sudbury, 

 (4) Brandon (M.), Mildenhall, Barton Mills. 



Pomatias elegans (J///7/,?r).~Rare. (2) On a hedgebank at 

 Lavenham. 



Neritina fluviatilis {Ltnne). — Rare. (4) Brandon (M.), Milden- 

 hall. 



Unio pictorum {Lm7ie).—{i)Gi. Fakenham (S.). (4) Mildenhall. 



Anodonta cygnaea (Z/««<?).— (i) Great Fakenham (S.). (2), Sud- 

 bury. (4) Mildenhall. 



var. anatina Linn'e. — Mildenhall. 



Sphaerium COrneum {Limi'e). — Common. Great Fakenham (S.), 

 Redgrave, Walsham-le-Willows, Knettishall. (2) Sudbury, Lavenham. 

 (4) Mildenhall. 



var. flavescens Macgillivray. — Knettishall, Sudbury. 



var. pisidioides Gray. — Lavenham. Great Fakenham (S.). 



S. lacustre (^Midler). — (i) Great Fakenham (S.), Walsham-le- 

 Willows. (4) Mildenhall. 



Pisidium amnicum {Muiier).—{i) Great Fakenham (S.). (4) 

 Brandon (M.), Mildenhall, Barton Mills. 



P. pusilium {G»ielin). — (i) Haughley, Wetherden, Wyverstone. 

 (2) Hitcham. (4) Brandon (M.). 



P. obtusale Pfeiffer. — (i) Haughley, Wyverstone. (2) Lavenham, 

 Sudbury. 



P. gassiesianum Dupuy. — -Rare. (4) Santon Downham. In a 

 ditch on Thetford Warren. 



British Species of Vallonia. — I can confirm Mr. B. B. Woodward's remark 

 [antea, p. 82) that the embryonic shell in British specimens of Vallonia costata is 

 smooth. The embryonic whorls of living shells collected in marshy ground, where 

 there would be no likelihood of the costse being abraded, were just as smooth as the 

 nucleus of V. pitlchella, when viewed under a one-inch objective. So far I have 

 not succeeded in taking all three forms of Vallonia together, though I have found 

 V. pulchella with V. costata at Llandudno, and V. costata with V. excentrica at 

 Aldeburgh and near Chiswick. In the Holocene deposit at Uxbridge, however, 

 Mr. A. Loydell has noted all three together. It may be heresy to say so, but I 

 think that V. excentrica will eventually be considered merely a variety of V. pul- 

 chella. My reason for saying this is that if a good series of the two forms is taken, 

 it is quite possible to grade one into the other. Until the shell is nearly mature, 

 there is no difference between the two, and the eccentricity of the body-whorl seems 

 to be a very variable quantity. It would be interesting to have other members' 

 views on this point.— J. E. Cooper {Read before the Society, Dec. 13th, 1905). 



