282 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. I6, NO. 9, JUNE, I922. 



base, and a compressed, angulated aperture, the diameter of the shell 

 being rather more than 34^-inch. He gives no figure of the species 

 himself, but cites those of six other authors, as follows : — " Br. Zool. 

 t. 80. f 108. / Don. Br. Shells, iv. t. iii. / Chem. Conch, ix. t. 122. 

 f. 1045. a.b.c. / Lister Co?ich. t. 61. f. 58. / Favan. t. 64. O. i. 3. / 

 Petiver Gaz. t. 22. f. 10." The last four of these references are 

 precisely those which Gmelin gives in describing his H. elegans'^; they 

 all seem to depict the common bandless mutation of that species. 

 Donovan's plate, as we have seen, depicts the banded form of the 

 same species, while in citing Pennant here, instead of under his 

 Helix trochifortnis — the name that he gave to H. fulva Mtill. — 

 Montagu simply followed Donovan in mistaking the identity of 

 Pennant's species. In his remarks, however, Montagu is careful not 

 to state positively that Pennant's species and his own are the same, 

 but merely says : — "There can be little doubt that this is the same as 

 that . . . communicated by Mr. Pennant." Turning now to Brown's 

 two figures (which Gude and Woodward state " are evidently in- 

 ventions ") we find tliat, though very badly drawn, they appear to 

 represent a whitish, pyramidal, perforate shell, very unlike H. fulva 

 Mull., a species which he depicts on the previous plate, calling it 

 Helix tivchifortnis, the name given to it by Montagu.^ On the other 

 hand, a comparison of Brown's figures with those of Donovan which 

 he cites leads one to think that they are probably bad copies of two 

 of Donovan's drawings of the shell named H. elegans by Gmelin, the 

 dark band being omitted in conformity with Montagu's description. 



It is thus clear that both of Brown's citations refer to H. elegans 

 Gmelin, and that his poor figures are not improbably modified copies 

 of drawings of the same species ; consequently there can be no 

 reasonable doubt for what species the name Trochoidea was proposed, 

 and Gray was right in stating that the type of Brown's genus was 

 Helix elegans. Therefore, while the name Trochula, Schliiter has 

 priority over Xeroclivia Monterosato, Brown's appropriate name 

 Trochoidea, being older still, seems to be the correct one to use for 

 the subgenus of which H. elegans Gmelin is the type species.^ 

 Petasina Beck, and Euconulus Reinhardt. 



Conulus Fitz. (1833) and Petasia Beck (1837) both have H. fulva 

 Miill. as their type species, but both these names are preoccupied, 

 therefore JEucofiuliis Reinhardt (1883) is now generally employed in 



1 Syst. Nat., 1791, vol. i (6), p. 3642. 



2 The great dissimilarity between Brown's figures of the two species, which he rightly 

 placed in different genera, shows that the naming of the figures of both forms " Helix Juiva" in 

 the second edition of his work, published seventeen years afterwards, must have been due to 

 some error. 



3 It is interesting to note that although Pilsbry uses the name Trochula Schliiter, he writes: 

 " The name proposed by Brown, in 1827, may prove to have first claim for this group, " notwith- 

 standing that he had not seen Brown's work. (Man. Conch. (2nd ser.), vol. ix, 1894, p. 262). 



