‘ 
Natural-Historical Collections. g3) 
H. serica, H. fusca, the four species called Pupa muscorum, and the Lymnea 
fragilis. I sent specimens of all these, except one of the species of Pupa mus- 
corum, and the Lymnea fragilis, which I had not inmy possessiou. Therefore, 
whatever blunders are made, in figuring any of the shells alluded to in my paper,’ 
except the eight species furnished by me, are attributable to the publishers ; the 
figure of the shells, under consideration, being made from a specimen supplied by 
Sowerby, exculpates me; and is, doubtless, as you observe, a figure of the Lym..- 
palustris. 
- Lymnea detrita has long puzzled me, and I have, since I saw your remarks,’ 
struck it out of my list of British land and fresh water species. I am as much 
at a loss, as you can be, to divine what the shell is that Sowerby has figured in 
reference to this species. 
Lymnea peregra, Ly. limosa, Fleming, (Planorbis) nitidus. Your. observa- 
tions on these precisely accord with my own. 
Succinea amphibia. There is one point, however, in which I must beg leave 
to differ from you, with respect to the shell in question, which is, that it is the 
HI. limosa of Linneus, who has referred to Gualtier, Tom. V, Fig. 2. and which, 
as I observed in the Magazine, is, undoubtedly, Succinea amphitia. Gualtier’s 
description of the species, also agrees with the shell in question : it is in these 
words, ‘° Buccinum fluviatile, subflavium, pellucidum, trium spirarum, tenuissi- 
mum, ore magno ovali oblongato, mucrone non brevissimo.” Your shell, on the 
contrary, appears to possess five whirls, is of a brownish red, and may probably 
be a variety of L. ovata, or peregra. Ifa distinct species, I beg to suggest the 
propriety of naming it Lymnea brunnea ; and, I may also add, and which is a 
circumstance deserving attention, that Dillwyn, Drapernaud, and Lamarck, have 
all referred to Gualtier’s figure for this shell; you say, too, that your shell was 
found in a “ ditch,’’ which is not the habitat of Dr. Turton’s H. imosa, which 
he describes as inhabiting ‘‘ wet meadows.” 
Clausilia ventricosa. You say this is not the 7. biplicatus of Montagu. 
Sowerby has probably copied the figure of Drapernaud’s C. ventricosa. My ob- 
servation was, that judging from the two specimens of 7. biplicatus in my pos- 
ession, and which came originally from Mr. Gray, I considered them the C. ven- 
tricosa. : 
Clausilia solida. 'The figure is Sowerby’s. 
Pupa muscorum. The species figured in the Magazine, are 
1. P. muscorum, Lam. P. marginata. Drap. T. Chrysolis 
2. P. umbilicata, Lam. P. muscorum, Flem. Dill. Turt. 
3. P. muscorum, Drap. and not British to my knowledge. 
4, Cyclostoma truncatulum, Lam. (T. muscorum, Don. quoad figura.) 
this last probably not British. It is the Cyclostoma subcylindricum, 
of Fleming, | 
Heliz sylvatica. Sowerby’s figure may probably be from a shell of one of the 
varieties of Lamark’s H. hortensis ; but I do not understand you to say, that 
the shell described by Lamarck, and figured by Drapernaud, under this name, is, 
in reality, a variety of Helix hortensis. I wished to know if the true sylvatica 
is really British ?* 
Helix carthusianella, I am informed, is very rare as a British shell ; but has 
been found, by Mr. Gray, about Little Hampton Down. ‘The British H. cau- 
tiana is not referable to this last, but is the H. carthusiana. — : 
Helix cellaria. The species allied to this are several, and intricate; and Dr. 
Fleming, under the name of H. nitida, includes five species, if not more. 
Helix sericea. What I suppose to be this, is the Helix hispida of Pennant, 
Dillwyn, Wood, and Fleming, and quite a distinct species from the Helix his- 
pida, of Donovan, Drapernaud, and Lamarck. One of my correspondents 
* I stated in my observations on Mr. Kenyon’s paper, that his Helix sylvatica, 
was only the banded variety of Helix hortensis. I am not aware that the former 
shell has been ever found in Great Britain. TT. B 
