OAMPYLAEA COERULANS. 
43 
some respect similar to that of the C. coerulans since it has two mucus 
glands ramified at the ends, yet it is in general more related to the 
genus Helix (s. str.), which is proved principally by its four-edged dart. 
Not less important are the differences in the shells of the two 
species. Those of C. coerulans are the most similar to those of the 
Campylaeae, while the shell of A . Grateloupi, as is known, is most 
closely related to that of the Maculariae, I therefore regard C. coeru¬ 
lans as a representative of a distinct genus. In naming this new genus 
«Hazaya» I wish to do honour to the memory of the most excellent 
Hungarian malaeologist J. Hazay. 
Kobelt 1 looks upon the peculiarities of the gnawing apparatus of 
the A. Grateloupi as such important characteristics that he would be 
inclined to regard this species as the last representative of an extinct 
family, and to take it quite out from among the Helices , and set up a 
new family for it. In accordance with this conception H. coerulans 
should be placed into the same family as A. Grateloupi, but the case 
of H. coerulans has shown that this placing into a separated family is 
not sufficiently justified. The construction of the reproductive system of 
H. coerulans shows undoubtedly that this species was developed from 
the Campylaeae , therefore the genus Hazaya must be regarded as a 
side-branch of the genus Campylaea , the gnawing apparatus of which 
has been transformed by accomodation to changed conditions of existence, 
to the changed food, which can be concluded from the fact that H. coe¬ 
rulans lives under quite other circumstances than the Campylaeae. 
The Campylaeae lives in places more humid and richer in vegetation, 
H. coerulans, however, on the driest rocks, where it can find nothing 
else except dry, or in rainy weather saturated mosses and lichens. Why- 
this gnawing apparatus, the radula of which is provided with sicklelike 
teeth, and a jaw not ribbed but only striated, is more convenient for 
gnawing mosses, is a question which for the present can not be answe¬ 
red. It is possible that similar conditions separated the direction of 
development of the Maculariae and Allognathus, I therefore regard the 
resemblances of the gnawing apparatus of Allognathus and Hazaya as 
the result of a convergent development. 
In the «Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesell¬ 
schaft» (1908, Vol. 40., No. 3, p. 132) Mr. P. Hesse published a paper 
intitled «Kritische Fragmente». A part of this paper was devoted by 
the author to the criticism of my article published in the Hungarian 
1 Helix Quedenfeldti von Martens. (Nachrbl. d. Deutsch. Mal. Ges. XXIIL, 
1891, p. 140.) 
