268 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. ID, APRIL, I9O9. 



parts. Soap, if used, sliould be dissolved in the water and not rubbed 

 on the shell, and if the shell is very thin and delicate it is better to 

 use tepid water. Shells with an epidermis should never be put into 

 fresh water or the epidermis will crack and peel off. They may, 

 however, be washed in sea water. I should be inclined to suggest to 

 the South Kensington xMuseum authorities to try very hot water as a 

 cure for the corrosion from which their shells are said to suffer. I 

 am unable to make the experiment, as I have never had an instance 

 of such corrosion in my own cabinets. 



Helix nemoralis eaten by Rabbits. — In the first edition of Adams' 

 "Collector's Manual" (1884), the author mentions finding empty and broken shells 

 of H. nemoralis at the entrance to rabbit burrows on sandhills in the north of 

 Ireland, and again refers to this in his second edition, but he states that he could 

 never discover whether rabbits or rats were the culprits. During a recent visit to 

 CO. Donegal I actually saw the rabbits devouring the snails, so the matter is 

 satisfactorily settled. Quite a large number of shells was seen broken and with the 

 snails eaten. — C. E. W^iucnT [Read before the Sociefy, Nov. nth, 1908). 



Note. — During a residence of six months in the north of Ireland I constantly 

 used to find heaps of gnawed empty shells, often amounting to a bushel, sometimes 

 nearly blocking up the mouths of rabbit burrows on the sandhills at Portrush, but 

 never actually saw the animals eat the snails, which they must have brought in one 

 by one in their teeth to eat at leisure. As I never found traces of rats about, I 

 suspected the rabbits, and am glad that Mr. Wright has definitely settled the 

 matter. I suspect, however, that rats, which often frequent sandhills near seacoast 

 villages, also prey on snails when they find them. — Lionel E. Adams { K cad Oe fore 

 the Society, Nov. nth, 1908). 



Banding of Helix nemoralis. — In reference to Mr. Beeston's remarks on 

 Helix iieinoralis {J. of C, vol. 12, p. 207), I would note that (l) — The libcllula 

 type no doubt exists in most places quite in the proportion of two to one— 

 often more. (2)— If his suggestion is that the rubella type does not provide its 

 proper proportion of missing band forms, I should think this doubtful. Me almost 

 writes as if the rubella type provided no missing band forms, but a glance at 

 my collection shews 00300, 00340, 12045, 02300, 10345, 00(345), 003(45), 00345, 

 00045, 000(45), 00305, 02345, 103(45), 023(45), 10300, and 12305. It would be 

 interesting to discuss at a meeting the question whether the archetypal Helix 

 was 5 banded, or possessed of one periiiheral band, or unicolorous. I incline 

 to think that the peripheral band is the original and usually constant one (varia- 

 tions 12045 are always rare in the whole family of Helicida) and that "splits" 

 from the peripheral band have developed into four other bands. — [Rev.] |. W. 

 IIoKSLEY {^Kcad before the Society, Nov. nth, 1908^ 



