20G MESSRS. A. S. KENNAftD AND B. B. WOODWARD ON THE 



suppt. pp. 38-43), whilst the number of specimens is added in ( ) after the 

 name : — 



LlMAX MAXIM US, & 

 FLAVUS. 



No doubt attaches to the identification of these two species which are 

 established by the references given to Lister's figures. 



Agriolimax (Limax, L.) agrestis. 



Linne's reference to Lister, who remarks on its peculiar white mucus, 

 suffices to show the species intended. 



Arion (Limax, L.) ater. 



As shown by the figures cited in Lister this well-known form cannot be 



mistaken, nor its colour varieties rufus, Linn., and alius, Mull, in Litt. of 



the 1 2th edition of the ' Systema.' According to Collinge (Conchologist, 



ii. 1892, p. 59) Pollonera identified the British form with the A. empiricorum 



of Ferussac, and held it distinct from the L. ater of Linne, overlooking 



Linne's reference to Lister, but no other malacologist has subscribed to this 



opinion. 



• 

 Helix gothica. 



The diagnosis of this species might apply equally to either Pyramidida 

 rotundata (Mull.) or P. ruderata (Studer), whilst the young stage of Helix 

 lapicida, Linn., has also been suggested. 



As previously mentioned two examples of P. ruderata are in the collection, 

 but there is no means of connecting them with Linne's diagnosis, conse- 

 quently the name cannot be used. 



*Helicella (Helix, L.) itala (4). 



Linne's number in his own handwriting still visible on one of the speci- 

 mens places the identity of this species beyond doubt. 



*CoCHLICELLA (HELIX, L.) BARBARA. 



Hanley (Ipsa Linnsei Conch, p. 384) states that Dillwyn identified Ibis form 

 with the Bulimus acutus of Muller and that the supposition was confirmed 

 by the presence of specimens in the Linnean cabinet that alone agreed 

 with the author's diagnosis. Unfortunately Hanley overlooked the fact that 

 Dillwyn (Cat. ii. p. 956) quotes Miiller's Helix acuta for the English shell 

 and that under Helix harbara (p. 9G0) he merely criticises Chemnitz's 

 supposition that H. cannula might be the species meant, and proceeds " but 

 the description answers better to a diminutive specimen of //. acuta." 

 Dillwyn, therefore, made no definite statement on the subject, and conse- 

 quently one is not surprised to find in the Hist. Brit. Moll, of Forbes and 



