8o 



lOrRNAI. OF CONCHOTOGV, VOL. 12, XO. 



iri.v, 1907 



Note on Paludestrina confusa from Oulton Broad. — In the year 1903 Mr. 

 J. R. Le Brockton Tomlin presented to the British Museum a series of specimens 

 of a Paludestrina from Oulton Broad, in Suffolk, which were subsequently identified 

 for him by Dr. Bantger as the P. avalina (l)rap. )^ They were all dead specimens. 

 At the end of last September Mr. A. Ma)'field very kindly sent me some living 

 examples of this species, \\hich he had collected in the same locality. Not being 

 satisfied with the determination of these shells I have put together the following 

 notes. Poiret in iSoi- described very briefly a species under the name oi Biiliiittis 

 anatimiis from " Les environs de Paris ?," and a variety of it from the mouth of the 

 river Somnie in the north of France. As he gave no figure and his diagnosis 

 consisted of only a dozen words, it is impossible to know what shell or shells he 

 had before him. In 1S05 Draparnaud-* published a Cyclostoma anatiiiuvi without 

 mentioning any special locality, but merely stated that it lived in " les eaux 

 douces." lie made no reference to Poiret's Bitlimus anatintis, and from his 

 description and figure it is quite impossible to know with certainty whether he 

 had Poiret's species or a different one before him. According to JeftVeys,-' who 

 examined Draparnaud's " original types or speciiiuiis," it was the Hydrobia iilvit. 

 This, however, must I think be a mistake, for Draparnaud's diagnosis certainly 

 does not apply to that species. " Coquille ovale et un peu conique, blanchatre, 

 lisse, trausparente. Spire de quatre dcmi-iours,'' etc. Contrast these words with 

 Jeffrey's own description of nhuc,^ and it will at once be seen that difterent shells 

 were before these authors, " shell oblong, rather solid, opaque and of a dullish 

 hue : whorls 7-S," etc. Moreover, Draparnaud's figure is unlike any specimen of 

 nlv(d I have ever seen, and the size of the shell is much too small. I therefore feel 

 convinced that JeftVeys was misled, or made a mistake in this instance. He also 

 states'^ that "the late M. d'Orbigny gave me, at Rochelle, in 1830, some shells 

 which he had received from Draparnaud under the name of Cyclostoma anatinuin." 

 These he considered a small variety of Bythiitia kachii. Moquin-Tandon^ con- 

 sidered " C. anatiniim Dia.p. = Byl/tiiiia anatiiia, mollusque marin," and the 

 Bulimus anatiitits of Poiret* he regarded as the same species. The latter, 

 according to Kiister,'' is the same as Draparnaud's C. aitatiniini, and Frauenfeld 

 held the same view.^** The shell described and figured, however, by Kiister, is 

 quite distinct from the Hydrobia iilvte, with which Jeffreys united Poiret's species. 

 Forbes and Ilanley did not refer to the Biiliiiiiis anatiiiiis of Poiret, but thought 

 it probable that Draparnaud's Cyclostoma anatiniim was the same as the British 

 species which is now known as Paludestrina confusa (Frauenfeld). Jeffre)s, differ- 

 ing where he possibly could with the authors of the British MoUusca, as I have 

 already shown, held a difterent view respecting that species. Considering the 

 doubt which surrounds both the Bulimus anatinus Poiret and the Cyclostoma 

 anatinuin Drap., it .seems to me advisable to put them both aside as beyond 

 recognition, unless the undoubted types can be studied and identified. The shells 

 from Oulton Broad might, I think, be considered to belong to P. confusa (=siwilis, 

 Auct.), for I cannot see that they are "abundantly distinct" from that species, as 

 Mr. Tomlin suggests. Freshwater shells are eminently variable, and the diff"erences 

 cited by Mr. Tomlin are less than I find in a series of P. jenkinsi from difterent 

 localities. The animal did not ofter any features distinctive from those of P. confusa 

 from the Thames. — E. A. Smith (Read before the Society, December 12th, 1906). 



1 Jotirn. o/Conch., vol. ii, p. ii. 



2 " Coq. fluv. terr. Aisne et Paris, 

 Prodrome," p. 47. 



3 " Hist. Nat. Moll. France," p. ^7, 



pi. r. fig. 24. ^ , .. , 



4 ■■ Hrit. Conch., vol. i, p. uo. 



5 Op. cit., vol. 4, p. 52. 



" Brit. Conch., ' vol. i, p. 63. 



7 " Hist. Nat. Moll., France." vol. 2, 

 p. 506. 



3 L.C., p. 314. 



9 " Conch. Cab. Pa!uJi?ia," p. 76, 

 pi. xiii., figs. 16. 17. 



10 I'e'liaudi. cool.-botaH. Gese/t. ll'ien, 

 1S64. vol. .\iv.. p. 570. 



