338 
Rev. Canon Norman's Revision 
types of which he had examined in the Cumingian collection, 
but that it was 8. virescens , Morelet. Baudon ( l . c.) replies 
that Jeffreys’s shells are not Moquin-Tandon’s vitrea , which is 
avar. of putris, that they are not 8. virescens , Morelet, with a 
type of which he has compared them. He refers them to S, 
stagnalis, Gassies, and figures two of Jeffreys’s shells — that 
from Grassmere, which he considers typical, and that from 
St. Albans, which he calls var. Jeffrey si. Judged by the 
drawings of these two shells, it seems to be a case of distinc- 
tion without a difference. However, we have at least a 
certain name, and the British shells are S. stagncilis (Gassies), 
Baudon. 
In the c Annals ’ Jeffreys referred his shell to S. debilis , 
Baudon, from whom he had received specimens : it may be 
supposed that these specimens were Baudon’s var. viridula , 
which would be colourless, like Jeffreys’s own vitrea ; and it 
appears to me that to distinguish Baudon’s figure of that 
variety in his original monograph (pi. ix. fig. 5) from his 
subsequent figures of 8. stagnalis is hair-splitting indeed. 
But Jeffreys also stated that, having examined Pfeiffer’s ( 'i . e. 
Morelet’s) type, he found that to be a different thing. How 
so, I would ask, in anything but colour ? 
It happens that in the collection of the late Dr. Tiberi, of 
Naples, now a part of my own, I find two Succinece labelled 
“Sued, debilis , Mori. Alger.,” and two others labelled “Sue - 
cinea pleuraulaca, Letour. Alger.” This collection is re- 
markably rich in types, and I have no doubt, although it is 
not so stated, that these shells were received from the authors 
whose names are attached to the species. These shells are 
identical, pale horn-coloured, but differing slightly in depth of 
tint, remarkable for their short spire, and are exactly repre- 
sented by the figure in Baudon’s original monograph as Succinea 
debilis , var. stagnalis , pi. ix. fig. 7. Now Morelet, in his 
second Supplement, has removed from his original 8. debilis 
the varieties stagnalis and tuberculata , and elevated them to 
a species under the first of these names. Turning to Wester- 
lund we find 8. pleuraulaca , Letour., given as a variety of 8. 
putris , and 8. debilis , Pfeiffer, holding specific rank. 
With reference to Jeffreys’s ( c Annals ’) criticism on a 
mistaken reference of Baudon to 8. humilis as having been 
described by Morelet, see Baudon (‘ Troisibme Supplement 
a la Mon. des Succin^es Francises ’ (1881), p. 12), where he 
writes : — u Le nom de debilis l’^te donnd par M. Morelet, et 
Pfeiffer decrivit l’espece. M. Morelet me dit, a ce sujet : ‘ Je 
n’ai jamais decrit cette coquille. II y a vingt ans environ 
que je donnai a Cuming, sous le nom de debilis , une Ambrette 
